Re: #285: Strength of requirements on Accept re: 406

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.


On 23/06/2011 12:20 a.m., Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2011-06-22 11:18, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> ...
>> Some background here:
>> ...
> 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 -

Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2011 21:59:42 UTC