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 MorrisReceived on Monday, 4 August 1997 18:37:45 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:03 UTC