W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > February 2007

RE: Tranfer-Encoding vs Content-Encoding

From: Jonathan Marsh <jonathan@wso2.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:57:11 -0800
To: "'Philippe Le Hegaret'" <plh@w3.org>
Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01bc01c75542$76386b80$3501a8c0@DELLICIOUS>

Thank you for this comment.  The Working Group this issue as a CR143 [1]. 

The latest editor's draft [2] has switched over from Transfer-Coding to
Content-Encoding.

Unless you let us know otherwise within 2 weeks, we will assume you agree
with the resolution of this issue.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR143
[2]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts.html
?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#http-content-encoding-decl


Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com - http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Philippe Le Hegaret
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 6:51 AM
> To: keith chapman
> Cc: www-ws-desc
> Subject: Tranfer-Encoding vs Content-Encoding
> 
> 
> I talked to Yves Lafon and it looks like we want to reconsider this
> indeed.
> 
> Transfer-Encoding is hop-by-hop, while Content-Encoding is end-to-end.
> 
> This means that if the HTTP implementation is using a proxy, the proxy
> will see the Transfer-Encoding: gzip, will unzip it, and not necessarily
> forward the request as TE gzip. I don't think this is what we intended
> in the WSDL specification. That wouldn't be the case for
> Content-Encoding.
> 
> So, we should consider binding the {http transfer coding} property to
> the HTTP Content-Encoding header. Both can work for SOAP and HTTP
> binding. The XML Protocol Working Group even considered defining a new
> content encoding for MTOM instead of a mime type but gave up given the
> difficulties of introducing a new TE in HTTP.
> 
> Philippe
> 
> On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 10:49 -0500, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 14:30 +0530, keith chapman wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Does the spec state the HTTP header to use when a message is encoded
> > > as gzip. I  had a look at section "6.3.2 HTTP Transfer Coding
> > > Selection" it does not state anything to this regard. The test
> > > framework looks for the header "Transfer-Encoding=gzip" but axis2 uses
> > > the header "Content-Encoding: gzip" .
> >
> > Given
> > [[
> >   This [Transfer-Encoding] differs from the content-coding in that the
> > transfer-coding is a property of the message, not of the entity.
> > ]]
> > http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.41
> >
> > I believe Transfer-Encoding is the one to use. With the set of value
> > available in section 3.6 of the HTTP RFC [1]. Note that "identity" can't
> > be used anymore in as a transfer codings, according to the latest
> > editors version of the HTTP RFC that includes errata [2].
> >
> > Given your question, the spec needs clarification.
> >
> > Philippe
> >
> >
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec3.html#sec3.6
> > [2]
> > http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-
> latest.html#transfer.codings
> >
Received on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 22:57:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:33 GMT