Re: pack200-gzip Content Coding

Hi guys,

thanks for including me on this conversation.

To be honest this is the first time that really read into the details
of the Java Web Start
implementation. Looks very ugly indeed. I agree that a media type
would have been
the right solution.  Too bad that nobody involved in the respective
JSR in the JCP
seems to have noticed :(

My gauge at the deployment of JWS is that it is not very heavily deployed.

Since we had the luxury and benefit of having Julian and others to effectively
work as the HTTP-Police (or Liaison) on our JSRs, I am more than happy to
return the favor and ask around in the JCP who would be the right person to
talk to...

I will keep you posted...


On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Julian Reschke <> wrote:
> On 09.04.2010 05:17, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> Hmm, IETF doesn't appear to have a liaison with the JCP.
> cc'ing David Nuescheler who might know.
>> I did find this:
>> ... where it's pretty clear this is an abuse of Accept-Encoding. I'd
>> hazard a guess that it's deployed somewhat; can some of the more Java-minded
>> people on the list ask around, please?
> In the meantime I saw this as well.
> It appears to be used by Java Webstart, but really should have been a media
> type as far as I can tell.
>> To me, this seems like a good argument for a slightly higher bar in this
>> registry... and I'm sorely tempted to try to remove this entry, or at least
>> deprecate it, if it's already deployed.
> We already changed the requirements (or actually stated them for the first
> time) to "specification and expert review" - I think that would have
> prevented this.
> Best regards, Julian

David Nuescheler
Chief Technology Officer

twitter: @daysoftware

Received on Friday, 9 April 2010 11:30:47 UTC