W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cdf@w3.org > December 2007

[closed] Re: test WICD Core 1.0 #55-#57 / gzip vs. x-gzip / WebKit bug report #16269

From: Ted Guild <ted@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:06:11 -0500
To: Timur Mehrvarz <Timur.Mehrvarz@web.de>
Cc: sysreq@w3.org, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, public-cdf@w3.org, jose@w3.org
Message-ID: <nnbhci9t6b0.fsf@dev-null.guilds.net>

Timur Mehrvarz <Timur.Mehrvarz@web.de> writes:
>> Timur: Our server should not be using x-gzip, so I have copied
>> sysreq on this reply.
>> Sysreq: if there is some reason that we use the unofficial x-gzip
>> when gzip is the correct and registered content encoding, please let
>> us know; otherwise, please change the W3C servers to use the correct
>> value.

Apparently this is still Apache's default behavior, apparently for
"old clients."  I tried a number of clients just now including lynx
and most handle gzip fine, emacs w3 didn't but then it doesn't handle
x-gzip either.


It looks like someone tried to argue dropping the x-gzip default over
four years ago without much success.


> Hi sysreq. Any chance we can have "Content-Encoding: gzip" instead of
> "Content-Encoding: x-gzip" anytime soon?

Done now as there is no point in keeping the x- around since the other
is standardized, long ago at that.

Another thing I find odd with Apache here is that with this .txt.gzip
resource it that it gives the content type for the first file
extension (.txt) it comes across and not the last (.tgz).

|grep Content-

Content-Encoding: gzip
Content-Length: 168
Content-Type: text/plain

HEAD http://www.w3.org/People/Ted/foo.gz |grep Content-

Content-Encoding: gzip
Content-Length: 53
Content-Type: application/gzip; qs=0.001

IMHO it should give application/gzip in such cases.  We'll look into
that and follow up with Apache folks.

Ted Guild <ted@w3.org>
W3C Systems Team
Received on Sunday, 23 December 2007 22:07:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:02:22 UTC