- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 23:17:39 +0200
- To: Johnny Graettinger <jgraettinger@chromium.org>
- CC: Michael Piatek <piatek@google.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2014-06-20 23:08, Johnny Graettinger wrote: > If you have specific examples of real sites broken by this > behavior, > > please let me know and we'll investigate. > > > We just (two weeks ago) killed implicit gzip in HTTP/2, so we're > pretty sure it's a serious problem. > > > My recollection (and that of the meeting minutes > <https://github.com/httpwg/wg-materials/blob/master/interim-14-06/minutes.md>) was > that we killed implicit gzip because there are gnarly HTTP/1 spec > conformance issues, and a similar outcome can be achieved if first-mover > HTTP/2 deployments refuse HTTP/2 requests with a-e: identity. I don't > recall it being substantiated as a "serious problem" in that conversation. The serious problem is that changing the content-coding while not changing the ETag can break conditional requests and range requests. That falls under my definition of "serious". Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 20 June 2014 21:18:20 UTC