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

Re: Any objections to "Accept-encoding: gzip, *;q=0"?

From: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 11:21:40 -0400
Message-Id: <199707221521.LAA16690@devnix.agranat.com>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3850

JM> 	http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/Protocols/HTTP/Issues/#CONTENT-ENCODING

JM> has been assigned to myself and Henrik for resolution.  We're pretty
JM> close to solving most of it, except for a seemingly minor concern:
JM> How does a client say "don't send me the 'identity' encoding"?

  On further reflection, I really think that we should just not
  provide this capability at all.  The server should always be free to
  just send the resource as is in response to the request.  If the
  server has or can create a version of the resource in one of the
  acceptable encodings, it should send that, but I think that the
  implicit 'identity' coding (sent with no Content-Encoding header)
  should always be an acceptable response.

  If there is an Accept-Encoding header in the request, it should be
  interpreted as meaning that the listed encodings are acceptable in
  addition to the implicit 'identity'.

  I can't quite puzzle out from the reference on the issues list what
  the problem with this approach is.

Scott Lawrence           EmWeb Embedded Server       <lawrence@agranat.com>
Agranat Systems, Inc.        Engineering            http://www.agranat.com/
Received on Tuesday, 22 July 1997 08:26:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:03 UTC