W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: #285: Strength of requirements on Accept re: 406

From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 09:59:09 +1200
Message-ID: <4E0265AD.3070003@qbik.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Some versions of WinGate removed Accept-Encoding.

If the server ignored that, and sent say gzipped back, it would cause 
problems, esp with caching.

I think it's a really bad idea to ignore it.  It would have been removed 
for a reason.

Some plug-in filters also remove it (e.g. they can't handle certain 
encodings, but need to scan the data).  So ignoring again causes problems.

In general I think ignoring Accept-Encoding or sending an encoded 
response when there was no Accept-Encoding received is a very bad idea.

Adrien



On 23/06/2011 12:20 a.m., Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2011-06-22 11:18, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> ...
>> Some background here:
>>    
>> http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2010/07/12/velocity-forcing-gzip-compression/
>> ...
>
> If I read this correctly, this is a workaround for broken 
> intermediaries (and maybe IE6 behind proxies).
>
> Do we really need to address this in the spec? And does it affect 
> anything beyond Accept-Encoding?
>
> Are we sure that 406 is supposed to be about all "Accept-*" headers?
>
> Maybe a compromise would be to mention that some intermediaries are 
> known to eat "Accept-Encoding", and thus origin servers can pick 
> Content-Codings of their choice if they are sure the recipient will be 
> able to process them.
>
> Best regards, Julian

-- 
Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2011 21:59:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:41 GMT