- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 16:32:25 -0500
- To: Dave Kristol <dmk@bell-labs.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
At 16:15 11/19/97 -0500, Dave Kristol wrote:
Hi Dave,
>Sorry, but I find these paragraphs very confusing and, possibly,
>contradictory. According to (3), an empty Accept-TE allows only
>"identity". According to (4), "chunked" is always acceptable. Which is
>right?
They are indeed - must have been eating something bad. I think this is better:
3. The "identity" transfer-coding is always acceptable, unless specifically
refused because the Accept-TE field includes "identity;q=0". The "chunked"
transfer-coding is always acceptable. The Trailer header field (section
14.Y) can be used to indicate the set of header fields included in the
trailer.
4. If the Accept-TE field-value is empty, only the "identity" and the
"chunked" transfer-codings are acceptable.
>Also, in these (earlier) examples of Accept-TE:
> Accept-TE: deflate
> Accept-TE:
> Accept-TE: chunk=1.0; deflate=0.5
>
>Is "chunk" a hypothetical new TE, or is it a misspelling of "chunked",
>in which case it's invalid (because "chunked" can't take a parameter)?
>And, syntactically don't those have to be
> Accept-TE: chunk;q=1.0; deflate;q=0.5
Sorry, it should have been
Accept-TE: chunked; deflate;q=0.5
meaning that the client accepts any allowed header to occur in the trailer
of a chunked encoded message and is somewhat happy to accept deflate.
Thanks!
Henrik
--
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen,
World Wide Web Consortium
http://www.w3.org/People/Frystyk
Received on Wednesday, 19 November 1997 13:38:25 UTC