Re: Support for gzip at the server #424 from 陈智昌 on 2014-03-16 (ietf-http-wg@w3.org from January to March 2014)

From: 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 21:32:21 -0700
To: James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>
Cc: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYj6RnALmCa2xPWrWU27wtNzzpE7Lzi6fF-LKwN17AeCsw@mail.gmail.com>

I must be missing something. There's no implicit content encoding, is
there? I thought it was implicit accept encoding.

On Mar 15, 2014 7:45 PM, "James Cloos" <cloos@jhcloos.com> wrote:
>
> It seems from all of this that the /real/ bugs are using the gzip CE for
> anything which is not already gzip(1)-compressed on disk, and http/2's
> flawed idea of making any non-transparent CE implicit.
>
> Changing how CE works clearly breaks things and lacks any real benefits.
>
> -JimC
> --
> James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>         OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6
>

Received on Sunday, 16 March 2014 04:32:49 UTC