- From: Paul Marquess <paul_marquess@yahoo.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 17:10:31 +0100
- To: "'Henrik Nordstrom'" <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Cc: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
From: Henrik Nordstrom [mailto:henrik@henriknordstrom.net]
> On tis, 2007-08-07 at 14:20 +0100, Paul Marquess wrote:
>
> > 1. The definition of "deflate" needs to be rewritten to remove the
> > ambiguity.
>
> Any suggestion?
One possibility is to remove the reference to RFC 1951 completely.
deflate
The "zlib" format defined in RFC 1950 [31].
This variant keeps both RFC 1950 & 1951 but drops the troublesome labels.
deflate
The compressed data format defined in RFC 1950 [31] in combination with
the compression mechanism described in RFC 1951 [29].
> I don't see how the definition is ambiguous, apart from the poor choice
> of name (should have been zlib, not deflate).
Indeed - the choice of name is the source of the ambiguity - there are two
conflicting uses of "deflate" in the definition. If 2616 had used "zlib"
instead of "deflate" the problem wouldn't have happened.
Paul
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2007 16:11:25 UTC