- From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:47:35 +0200
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: paul.marquess@ntlworld.com, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Received on Thursday, 9 August 2007 12:47:53 UTC
On tis, 2007-08-07 at 15:56 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > Yes, but > > <http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/ange/archives/archives-96/http-wg- > archive/1343.html> > > is no help. And the mismatches in RFC references also doesn't help... RFC1950 is zlib RFC1951 is deflate RFC1952 is gzip discussion regarding the defalate & gzip entries was on RFC1951 & RFC1952 it seems, which makes sense. actual definition of deflate ended up to be RFC1950 using RFC1951. > I had always thought deflate referred to the unwrapped > format, whereas gzip refers to the wrapped format. it's the intuitive choice.. but not how it got written. > The problem > is that there are advantages to storing the content in gzip format > and selectively delivering it according to which T-E's or C-E's > are listed as acceptable. ? how is that related? > I think it is worthy of an issue number. Probably. But the question is what is the correct solution. Regards Henrik
Received on Thursday, 9 August 2007 12:47:53 UTC