W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:13:50 +0200
To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Cc: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3g4k3592id9upfj3629eqp1hrphvkivcnp@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
* Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
>ons 2009-06-17 klockan 00:39 +0200 skrev Bjoern Hoehrmann:
>> The current draft uses the term "resource" in several senses. Where
>> it is meant to refer to a bit stream, neither resource nor represen-
>> tation is appropriate; neither term makes it clear which bit stream
>> it referred to, e.g., whether content encodings are removed or not.
>Can you point out an example where this is ambiguous regarding encoding?
>In HTTP content-encoding is never added/removed as part of normal
>operations. Doing so creates a new resource variant, same as selecting a
>different language or media type.
>Agents naturally must remove content-encoding in their presentation
>layer, and non-shared caches MAY to optimize reuse but if they do it's
>their responsibility to properly handle the difference.

I was referring to draft-abarth-mime-sniff-01, not any of the httpbis
drafts. In the former there is for example "The user agent MAY wait for
512 or more bytes of the resource to be available." That could be 512
bytes before removing chunked transfer encoding, all transfer encodings,
the content encoding, etc. depending on which byte stream one believes
"resource" (or "representation" per Mark's suggestion) refers to.
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Thursday, 18 June 2009 10:14:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:19 UTC