- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 23:32:48 +0200
- To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
* James M Snell wrote: >This does not preclude the use of alternative compression schemes. If >someone chooses, it would be possible, for instance, to continue using >accept-/content-/transfer-encoding at the http semantic layer and >simply not set the GZIP flag on the DATA frame. Having a "gzip flag" as, in effect, a shorthand for using those headers would make it very clear how to deploy alternative compression schemes, and would indeed address my concerns. I understood Poul-Henning Kamp to be considering going one step further and offering no means to define new compression schemes. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Tuesday, 21 May 2013 21:33:16 UTC