- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 18:02:48 +0100 (MET)
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU>
- Cc: jg@zorch.w3.org, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Roy T. Fielding: > [...] >Jeff said: >>although I'd suggest thinking about changing the whole sentence >>to read something like: >> If an Accept-Encoding header is present, and if the server cannot >> send a response which is acceptable according to the >> Accept-Encoding header, then the server SHOULD send a response >> using the default (identity) encoding. > >I like this new wording, regardless. I don't think the existing wording is broken. A response with _no_ encoding is _always_ `acceptable according to the Accept-Encoding header'. At least that was my interpretation when I last reviewed this stuff. The header limits the use of encodings, but not the non-use of encodings. [...] > Content-Encoding is a property of the resource (i.e., only the origin >server is capable of adding or removing it on the server-side, and only >the user agent is capable of removing it on the client-side). Not under 1.1 it isn't. If no no-transform directive is present, caches may change the type or encoding of the response. See sections 13.5.2 and 14.9.5. And yes, I complained when this change was made. Skimming the archives, I see that you were against it too, but I recall that it was decided to allow it in the end. >.....Roy Koen.
Received on Sunday, 16 February 1997 09:08:58 UTC