W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > January 2007

Re: The HTTP header to be used for a gzip message

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 15:59:07 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <51996.209.6.23.251.1168721947.squirrel@homer.w3.org>
To: "keith chapman" <keithgchapman@gmail.com>
Cc: "Jonathan Marsh" <jonathan@wso2.com>, "Philippe Le Hegaret" <plh@w3.org>, "www-ws-desc" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

keith chapman said:
> Hi,
>
> We do support Transfer-Encoding:chunked.  When a message is gziped it has
> to
> be a chunked message.

... unless you close the connection at the end of the message, in which
case, you don't need to use chunked.

> Which means if  we use the Transfer-Encoding header
> to  indicate gzip, the same header has got to indicate chunked too.  I
> tried
> this combination  with tomcat at the server. The server understands the
> message only if the headers are placed as following
>
> Transfer-Encoding: chunked
> Transfer-Encoding: gzip

I think this is incorrect:
[[
When the "chunked" transfer-coding is used, it MUST be the last
transfer-coding applied to the message-body.
]]
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-latest.html#transfer.codings

You can't apply chunked first, then gzip.

> If we reverse the order it returns a 501. The same occurs if we use
> "Transfer-Encoding: chunked,gzip " or "Transfer-Encoding: gzip,chunked ".

The second one should work and is equivalent to:

Tranfer-Encoding: gzip
Transfer-Encoding: chunked


> Taking this into account I'm still not sure which header we should be
> using...
>
> What do u think Philippe

I'm going to ask Yves Lafon to have a look at this,

Philippe
Received on Saturday, 13 January 2007 20:59:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:45 GMT