W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2007

RE: Clarification of the term "deflate"

From: Paul Marquess <paul_marquess@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:16:20 +0100
To: "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "'Henrik Nordstrom'" <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Cc: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <008e01c7e0af$46ecef60$3a3c140a@myopwv.com>

From: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org] On
 
> 
> On Aug 7, 2007, at 2:36 PM, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> 
> > On tis, 2007-08-07 at 17:10 +0100, Paul Marquess wrote:
> >
> >> One possibility is to remove the reference to RFC 1951 completely.
> >>
> >>   deflate
> >>     The "zlib" format defined in RFC 1950 [31].
> >
> > 1950 doesn't reference 1951.
> >
> >> This variant keeps both RFC 1950 & 1951 but drops the troublesome
> >> labels.
> >>
> >>   deflate
> >>     The compressed data format defined in RFC 1950 [31] in
> >> combination with
> >>     the compression mechanism described in RFC 1951 [29].
> >
> > RFCs define formats and protocols, not implementation. So it should
> > refer to the format defined by 1951, not the mechanism used for
> > producing that format.
> 
> Yes, but
> 
> <http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/ange/archives/archives-96/http-wg-
> archive/1343.html>
> 
> is no help.  I had always thought deflate referred to the unwrapped
> format, whereas gzip refers to the wrapped format. 


> The problem
> is that there are advantages to storing the content in gzip format
> and selectively delivering it according to which T-E's or C-E's
> are listed as acceptable.

Not sure I understand your point about gzip here Roy.  

> I think it is worthy of an issue number.

OK

Paul
Received on Friday, 17 August 2007 09:17:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:15 GMT