- 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>
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 UTC