- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 02:53:44 +0100
- To: Dan Winship <dan.winship@gmail.com>
- CC: "Mahdavi, Jamshid" <jamshid.mahdavi@bluecoat.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 23.03.2010 02:48, Dan Winship wrote: > On 03/22/2010 08:49 PM, Mahdavi, Jamshid wrote: >> We could try to clarify this by adding an implementation note to the >> text. Alternately, since some servers actually do implement *just* the >> 1951 version, we could add another content-coding which is >> specifically for this. > > My understanding is that the "bare" version is actually more common on > the web than the correct version, due to the fact that at least IE6 and > IE7 (not sure about 8 and 9) only support the bare version, and most > other browsers support both. Sounds like it would be cool to have test cases... > ... BR, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 23 March 2010 15:19:47 UTC