- From: David W. Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 12:06:25 -0800 (PST)
- To: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>
- Cc: Dave Kristol <dmk@research.bell-labs.com>, http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com
On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, John Franks wrote: > On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, Dave Kristol wrote: > > I think gzip and compress are different encodings. The fact that > a program called "gzip" understands both is not relevant. me too ... > > > > > 2) My server should not send 406, since it's only a SHOULD requirement > > anyway. Or perhaps it should send 406 only for HTTP/1.1 requests. > > > > What does your server do if a client sends a request with *no* > Accept-Encoding? I think that's what it should do in this case. > (E.g. send it as application/octet-stream). > > It is quite likely that there will be clients which support some > content encodings but not all the ones you support. I don't think you > want your server to be in the situation where it completely refuses to > serve a file to such clients. Better I think is that the server maintain two versions or in this case, uncompress on the fly ... or send a choice page that lets the user click the link for the explicit file... my assumption being that the request was for the resource w/o the _Z ... if the _Z is requested, then John's approach is reasonable ... one of the things missed in this whole mess is that the user *MAY* simply want the file delivered unmolested and saved on the hard drive. It is quite inconvenient for me when something is unziped or uncompressed by browsers, servers, etc. Dave Morris
Received on Tuesday, 3 November 1998 12:33:20 UTC