- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 15:09:27 -0700
- To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Cc: httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Jun 22, 2011, at 2:14 AM, Adrien de Croy wrote: > 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. See the definition of the field. No Accept-Encoding means send me ANY encoding. An empty Accept-Encoding field-value means "no encoding". Accept-Encoding was defined two years after Cotent-Encoding was *deployed*. There was simply no other possible definition that would work. ....Roy
Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2011 22:09:51 UTC