W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2010

RE: pack200-gzip Content Coding

From: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 08:10:55 -0500
To: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002101cad8af$41cd4b10$c567e130$@briansmith.org>
Julian Reschke wrote:
> What I'm still not sure about is why they defined pack200-gzip, instead of
> pack200 -- is there a concern that Content-Codings can't be nested? (This
is the
> reason why content codings should get expert review and discussion on a
> mailing list).
> The other concern is that content codings are harder to deploy then new
> types (IMHO), and thus it's not entirely clear why having a content coding
> works with exactly one format is a good idea (as compared to just define a
> proper media type).

I agree with you. But, I think the pack200-gzip registration is rather
benign. Deprecating/removing pack200-gzip's registration does more harm than

Received on Saturday, 10 April 2010 13:11:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:53 UTC