- From: David W. Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 18:35:28 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "'mcmanus@AppliedTheory.com'" <mcmanus@appliedtheory.com>, kweide@tezcat.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
On Mon, 4 Aug 1997, Yaron Goland wrote: > I also agree that the second one is correct. We should not confuse > content-encoding with the actual file. After all I could easily be > dealing with a server where I, a server side app, send the server a > plain text file with a content-disposition of .txt and the smart server > knowing it is talking to a UA that supports compression decides to > compress on the fly. Me too ... because as an application which created a compressed file wanted it to stay compressed when the UA received it. I recently received a file of xx.txt.gz ... had the UA ungzip it to show it and then save it as xx.txt.gz but uncompressed. But I'm not sure that the right solution isn't a new set of transfer encodings or something similar. It seems to me that 'content-' headers mostly deal with describing the logical content and the confusion here is because we are describing both logical content and transfer encoding. Dave Morris
Received on Monday, 4 August 1997 18:37:45 UTC