- From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 09:59:09 +1200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Some versions of WinGate removed Accept-Encoding. If the server ignored that, and sent say gzipped back, it would cause problems, esp with caching. I think it's a really bad idea to ignore it. It would have been removed for a reason. Some plug-in filters also remove it (e.g. they can't handle certain encodings, but need to scan the data). So ignoring again causes problems. In general I think ignoring Accept-Encoding or sending an encoded response when there was no Accept-Encoding received is a very bad idea. Adrien On 23/06/2011 12:20 a.m., Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2011-06-22 11:18, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> ... >> Some background here: >> >> http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2010/07/12/velocity-forcing-gzip-compression/ >> ... > > If I read this correctly, this is a workaround for broken > intermediaries (and maybe IE6 behind proxies). > > Do we really need to address this in the spec? And does it affect > anything beyond Accept-Encoding? > > Are we sure that 406 is supposed to be about all "Accept-*" headers? > > Maybe a compromise would be to mention that some intermediaries are > known to eat "Accept-Encoding", and thus origin servers can pick > Content-Codings of their choice if they are sure the recipient will be > able to process them. > > Best regards, Julian -- Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2011 21:59:42 UTC