- From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 21:14:39 +1200
- To: httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 22/06/2011 12:21 p.m., Mark Nottingham wrote: > Accept-Encoding has: > > """ > If the Accept-Encoding field-value is empty, then only the "identity" encoding is acceptable. > > If an Accept-Encoding field is present in a request, and if the server cannot send a response which is acceptable according to the Accept-Encoding header field, then the server SHOULD send an error response with the 406 (Not Acceptable) status code. > > If no Accept-Encoding field is present in a request, the server MAY assume that the client will accept any content coding. In this case, if "identity" is one of the available content-codings, then the server SHOULD use the "identity" content-coding, unless it has additional information that a different content-coding is meaningful to the client. > """ > "If no Accept-Encoding field is present in a request, the server MAY assume that the client will accept any content coding. " This seems highly dangerous to me. IMO it would be extremely foolhardy for a server to send back content gzipped when there was no Accept-Encoding header at all. Surely a sensible requirement would be that in the absense of an indication that a client can handle any content-encoding other than identity, the identity encoding MUST be used. Otherwise we place a requirement on all clients to add Accept-Encoding: identity to all requests, which is mindless bloat. Or am I reading this wrong? Regards Adrien -- Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2011 09:15:18 UTC