- From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 15:44:22 +1200
- To: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
- CC: 'HTTP Working Group' <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Brian Smith wrote: > >> So it's a shared cache scenario. It can't be legal to send gzipped >> content to a UA that didn't advertise support for it, so the proxy >> therefore must consider Accept-* headers. >> > > Caches do not need to interpret Accept-* headers; that is why Accept-* > headers are not mentioned at all in Part 6 (except for obscure case of > determining the language to use for messages in Warning headers). > OK. That seems counter-intuitive, so it could be worth putting an explanatory note to that effect in Part 6 somewhere. Thanks Adrien > See the definitions of the Accept-* headers. For example, "If no > Accept-Encoding field is present in a request, the server MAY assume that > the client will accept any content coding." There are actually a lot of > rules for determining what the server SHOULD do. But, there are no MUST- > level requirements for how servers interpret Accept-* headers. > > Regards, > Brian > > -- Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
Received on Wednesday, 27 May 2009 03:41:40 UTC