- From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 02:55:26 +0100
- To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Cc: "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2007 01:55:43 UTC
On ons, 2007-11-14 at 19:29 +1300, Adrien de Croy wrote: > Just basically that since the encodings are optional, and you can't > guarantee a client can use any content other than unencoded, then the > only safe option where there is no C-E header is to send unencoded or > 406 if you don't have an unencoded one (when will that ever happen on an > origin server?). When the server only has an encoded variant. Consider a request for http://www.example.com/some.file and the server only has some.file.gz and the request has "Accept-Encoding: [blank]". Clients not sending Accept-Encoding is assumed to accept any encoding which may exists now or in future. Not sending Accept-Encoding is basically saying "I don't care how it's encoded, just send me whatever you have, but preferably unencoded if possible". > A 406 certainly > would prompt UA developers to start advertising capabilities. So would getting incompatible media.. but in real life it's not such big deal. All the server need to do is to include User-Agent (or whatever header identifies the client in question) in Vary. Regards Henrik
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2007 01:55:43 UTC