- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 20:15:57 +0200 (MET DST)
- To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Jeffrey Mogul: > Some nitpicks: > (1) If the content-coding is one of the content-codings listed > in the Accept-Encoding field, then it is acceptable. (Note that, > as defined in section 3.9, a qvalue of 0 means "not acceptable".) This is slightly self-contradictory. > (2) The special "*" symbol in an Accept-Encoding field matches > any available content-coding. ..except those listed explicitly in the header field. > If no Accept-Encoding field is present in a request, the server MAY > assume that the client will accept any content coding. In this > case, if "identity" is one of the available content-codings, then > the server SHOULD use the "identity" content-coding. This SHOULD was not present in 2068, and I don't think adding it is a good idea. A server which knows that a legacy client accepts an encoding (e.g. by looking at the user-agent field) should be encouraged to send content in this encoding. >(4) In section 14.9 (Cache-Control), add > | "no-transform" >to the BNF for cache-request-directive. Are we allowed to make such an addition at this point in the standards process? Koen.
Received on Thursday, 24 July 1997 11:22:45 UTC