- From: David W. Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:53:30 -0800 (PST)
- To: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>
- Cc: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, John Franks wrote: > Transfer-encoding header) to save bandwidth. The proxy knows > the compressed length; the client needs to know it for the transaction > to work. As I said ... redefine the encoding to include a header (within the output of the encoding process) which gives the length. Of introduce a transfer-length header at that time. The length should be part of the encoding. Otherwise the next problem will be when a nested encoding is introduced. Where to put the length of that encoding. There is no risk to future extensibility if we ignore this potential at this time. Any such new encoding must be a 'closed' system in that both ends must understand it. Dave Morris
Received on Friday, 12 December 1997 09:59:50 UTC