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

Re: i37 - Vary and non-existant headers

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 05:33:47 +0100
To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Cc: 'HTTP Working Group' <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2ttkj3pkttppr8d9l4tn5t1pv7tv5qlp09@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Adrien de Croy wrote:
>However for Accept-Encoding, I believe this is an advertisement of 
>capability by the client, and absence of this advertisement should be 
>taken to mean the capability isn't there, and therefore this is a 
>non-match. (PS, this is another instance of where a reference to the 
>"identity" coding should be removed).  There is also explicit wording 
>for how to deal with a missing header in this case also which disagrees 
>with me - states that "the server MAY assume that the client will accept 
>any content coding".  This however IMO is dangerous, and the SHOULD 
>requirement to send "identity" should be replaced by MUST send 
>unencoded.  Otherwise we are making gzip, deflate etc all mandatory.

I am not sure what you are suggesting here. The requirement is a poorly
phrased "SHOULD unless" one, do you want to change this into "MUST un-
less" or into simply "MUST"? I don't think the latter is appropriate
(if I know for some reason the client can handle the response, there is
nothing wrong with sending an encoded entity body), and turning it into
a "MUST unless" is not meaningful, since "SHOULD" is already "MUST un-
less".
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2007 04:33:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:23 GMT