- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 14:50:45 +1100
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
It sounds like we have consensus to close #424 with no action. Anyone have a problem with that? On 18 Mar 2014, at 2:43 pm, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > On 17 March 2014 18:36, David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com> wrote: >> I think a client and server is always involved, so I think this issue is >> client compression of request content and server handling that compressed >> input. >> >> I think that server originating gzip compressed content and the client >> being required to handle it is NOT the issue being discussed here? > > Correct on both aspects. This is *request* compression. > > I'll note that there is nothing stopping a client from trying and > maybe failing to compress, or for specific applications to require > support of compression, or to have client send content types that use > compression in preference to uncompressed content. But requiring > support for a specific content-encoding is, as I think we've > concluded, perhaps a little too ambitious. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 18 March 2014 03:51:17 UTC