- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 12:15:14 +1200
- To: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 12.07.2012 09:59, Zhong Yu wrote: > Transfer-Encoding and Content-Encoding overlap in functionality. For > example, gzip can be done in either way. But in reality, gzip is only > implemented with Content-Encoding, for whatever reason. It might be > safer to introduce a new content-coding than a new transfer-coding. > The Content-Encoding is about the entity. End-to-End. The Transfer-Encoding is about the channel. Hop-by-Hop. gzip is not implemented as Transfer-Encoding due to all the reasons Willy and I put forward against mandatory gzip compression on SPDY connections. It is a large performance loss to de/re-compress at every hop. chunked on the other hand is trivial to recode and when used right increases performance. When implementing anything which intermediaries *need* visibility to and possibly even manipulation of, Content-Encoding is the worst way to do it. AYJ
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2012 00:15:54 UTC