W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 1997

Re: ISSUE CONTENT-ENCODING: Proposed wording

From: Graham Klyne <GK@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 00:02:56 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>
Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3643
At 03:17 PM 7/3/97 -0400, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
>I don't like the notion of the "server" having a content-coding.
>Content-codings are properties of the resource and not the server. Transfer
>codings are properties of the server.

I would say "not necessarily".  I note that the TCN draft treats this issue
as being orthogonal to resource alternatives.  Also, I think it is possible
that a proxy might be able to offer a content-encoding not offered by the
origin server.

>There is really no difference between content-types and content-encodings
>except that old clients fail to understand the latter. [...]

I note that RFC 2068 section 14.12 implies otherwise, in that it indicates
that content encoding is used as a *modifier* to a content-type (i.e. not
something which can replace a content type).


Graham Klyne
Received on Thursday, 3 July 1997 16:06:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:02 UTC