- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:48:49 +1100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Carine Bournez <carine@w3.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
My concern is that many implementations treat content-coding like transfer-codings, in some ways; that is, they layer it in automatically (e.g., mod_gzip). The confluence of this with things like byteranges, etag comparison, etc. may be quite prone to bugs. You'd also start to get into discussions like "can't JPEG just be a content-coding of GIF?" and so forth. The media type system isn't perfect by any means, but I think it's a better fit for this type of thing. Cheers, On 23/01/2009, at 5:07 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Mark Nottingham wrote: >> Yes. If it doesn't preserve characters, all sorts of mess can >> result, e.g., with ETag comparison, range retrieval, etc. > > ... > > I was looking at <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#rfc.section.3.5 > >...: > > "Content coding values indicate an encoding transformation that has > been or can be applied to an entity. Content codings are primarily > used to allow a document to be compressed or otherwise usefully > transformed without losing the identity of its underlying media type > and without loss of information." > > ...and was asking myself: is perfect reconstruction of the original > payload really required? Is there something we need to fix here? > > BR, Julian -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 30 January 2009 07:49:31 UTC