Re: Review of Content-Encoding: value token [exi]

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- 
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.


Received on Wednesday, 26 August 2009 16:28:19 UTC