W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1996

Re: HTTP/1.1 draft 12 aug 1996 and content encodings

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 19:23:22 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199609151723.TAA14905@wsooti04.win.tue.nl>
To: Nicolai Langfeldt <janl@ifi.uio.no>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1578
Nicolai Langfeldt:
>* Firstly, the Accept-Encoding header.  It is used for content
>negociation.  It's absense implies that any Content-Encoding is
>acceptable to the client.  There seems to be no way to specify that
>the client wishes only unencoded documents returned.

There is a way: see the last line of the Accept-Encoding section:

    An empty Accept-Encoding value indicates none are acceptable.

This means that you can send just


to get only unencoded documents.

>* Secondly about the usage of the Content-Encoding header.  I have
>seen, in various places, that the correct Content-Encoding for a file
>named, index.html.gz should be 'gzip'.

HTTP/1.1 does not specify any rules for `correctly' translating file
extensions into Content-Type and Content-Encoding headers; HTTP
servers are free to choose their own rules, and no consistency across
applications is required.

Of course, this makes automatically choosing a filename to save a page
to an art, not a science.  I'd go with Larry's suggestion to use the
local conventions for file extensions.

>  Nicolai Langfeldt

Received on Sunday, 15 September 1996 10:26:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:16:20 UTC