- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:06:16 -0700
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
>If you merely look at the specifications, there is enough >evidence that HTTP/1.0 had intended the "accept*" headers >to be consistent and that the distinctions in HTTP/1.1 were >merely editorial oversight because different people wrote >different parts. From that point to not require a burden >of proof in order to reinstate consistency. Sorry, that's nonsense. The specifications are different because the implementations are different. Henrik and I spent well over a year looking at different implementations in order to derive the syntax for each header field -- had they been the same, we would have been overjoyed to use a single syntax. The most painful thing about the HTTP spec work was dealing with shortsighted designs and then having to explain them to others. There is no q-value for Accept-Encoding because the following two fields are not equivalent Accept-Encoding: x-gzip;q=1, x-compress;q=1 Accept-Encoding: x-gzip, x-compress for any of the existing server implementations of HTTP/1.x. It is therefore wrong for the specification to suggest that it would be. If such a change is made, then there must also be a requirement (not a note) that prevents the use of a q-value with any encoding other than identity. Otherwise, you will have changed the protocol. .....Roy
Received on Thursday, 24 July 1997 15:29:28 UTC