- From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 05:58:40 -0500 (EST)
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Carine Bournez <carine@w3.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>
>> Well, if we leave the text how it is, it will have that effect...
>> ...
>
> Clarifying: I do agree that using Content-Encoding for encodings that are
> lossy on the octet stream level probably is a bad idea.
Well, I can see this as a strong requirement for TE, but for
Content-Encoding, it is less of a requirement, as we do not expect to be
able to use metrics given in the HTTP message on the "decoded" entity.
> And yes, implementations that introduce content codings need to make sure
> that outgoing (Etag:) and incoming etags (conditional headers) are
> transformed correctly. If that's not yet clear enough in the spec, we should
> improve it.
You mean when serving both versions from the same URI without any CL ?
Then yes.
> That being said, the current spec text about Content Codings says:
>
> "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."
"information" being fuzzy enough to allow content-coding to be lossless at
the byte-level.
--
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.
~~Yves
Received on Tuesday, 3 February 2009 10:58:50 UTC