- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 09:14:48 -0700
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, John Schneider <john.schneider@agiledelta.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Julian F. F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
On Aug 26, 2009, at 2:36 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > On 26/08/2009, at 5:28 PM, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: >> ons 2009-08-26 klockan 10:56 +1000 skrev Mark Nottingham: >> >>> That said, it would be good if what you do is done with an eye >>> towards >>> the new regime, to reduce the amount of problems we see down the >>> road. >>> In particular, it looks like the content-coding and transfer-coding >>> registry will be one and the same, so it would help if you could >>> design your registration with that in mind. >> >> They can not be entirely the same >> >> transfer-encoding must by definition be lossless or it will fail HTTP >> operations, while content-encoding don't. Being in the same registry just means they share the same namespace, not that they can all be used equally. chunked is not a content- encoding but it is still a way of encoding content, and we certainly don't want to allow someone to register a different coding with the name "chunked" for use as a content-encoding. ....Roy
Received on Wednesday, 26 August 2009 16:28:19 UTC