- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 07:57:35 +1100
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Jesse Wilson <jesse@swank.ca>, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 26 Feb 2014, at 7:54 am, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > On 25 February 2014 12:37, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >> The downside of only doing gzip is that if a server *does* use deflate, a HTTP1->2 intermediary will have to re-encode responses. Not saying that's a showstopper, just noting it. > > Well, the server should only do that if the request permits it then. > Thus, the intermediary would have to opt in to deflate to get deflate. Of course; never mind. It sounds like we're leaning gzip-only, but that people don't care passionately about it. Let's chat about it briefly next week. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2014 20:58:07 UTC