RE: pack200-gzip Content Coding

• From: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
• Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 08:10:55 -0500
• To: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <002101cad8af$41cd4b10$c567e130$@briansmith.org>

Julian Reschke wrote:
> What I'm still not sure about is why they defined pack200-gzip, instead of
just
> pack200 -- is there a concern that Content-Codings can't be nested? (This
is the
> reason why content codings should get expert review and discussion on a
public
> mailing list).
>
> The other concern is that content codings are harder to deploy then new
media
> types (IMHO), and thus it's not entirely clear why having a content coding
that
> works with exactly one format is a good idea (as compared to just define a
> proper media type).

I agree with you. But, I think the pack200-gzip registration is rather
benign. Deprecating/removing pack200-gzip's registration does more harm than
good.

Regards,
Brian

Received on Saturday, 10 April 2010 13:11:25 UTC