- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 19:23:22 +0200 (MET DST)
- To: Nicolai Langfeldt <janl@ifi.uio.no>
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
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
Accept-Encoding:
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.
>Regards,
> Nicolai Langfeldt
Koen.
Received on Sunday, 15 September 1996 10:26:12 UTC