W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 1998

TE: identity; q=0

From: Dave Kristol <dmk@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 09:40:48 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199804291340.JAA24125@aleatory.research.bell-labs.com>
To: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/82
So, I'm thinking about implementing this, and it occurs to me that it's
crazy to allow TE: identity; q=0.

Consider:  The HTTP/1.1 spec. already says that "chunked" is always
acceptable.  If "identity" were also always acceptable, then any server
that just implements those two (a common case?) could ignore the TE
header altogether, thus saving processing and code space.

Most content gets returned as "identity".  But as the spec. now stands,
a fully conforming server must check the TE header for "identity; q=0",
just so it knows to return a 406 (Not Acceptable).  That seems crazy to
me.  What earthly reason could a client have for *not* accepting

Dave Kristol
Received on Wednesday, 29 April 1998 06:47:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:05 UTC