W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: Review of Content-Encoding: value token [exi]

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 09:14:48 -0700
Message-Id: <EF5AD39A-D8EF-483C-89D6-F3CE9B727B93@gbiv.com>
Cc: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, John Schneider <john.schneider@agiledelta.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Julian F. F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
On Aug 26, 2009, at 2:36 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> On 26/08/2009, at 5:28 PM, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
>> ons 2009-08-26 klockan 10:56 +1000 skrev Mark Nottingham:
>>> That said, it would be good if what you do is done with an eye  
>>> towards
>>> the new regime, to reduce the amount of problems we see down the  
>>> road.
>>> In particular, it looks like the content-coding and transfer-coding
>>> registry will be one and the same, so it would help if you could
>>> design your registration with that in mind.
>> They can not be entirely the same
>> transfer-encoding must by definition be lossless or it will fail HTTP
>> operations, while content-encoding don't.

Being in the same registry just means they share the same namespace,
not that they can all be used equally.  chunked is not a content- 
but it is still a way of encoding content, and we certainly don't  
want to
allow someone to register a different coding with the name "chunked"
for use as a content-encoding.

Received on Wednesday, 26 August 2009 16:28:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:51 UTC