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

RE: Using Content-Encoding and Content-Disposition together

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
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.970804183110.15586B-100000@shell1.aimnet.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4080

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

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