- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 09:27:18 +1000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>, httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I'll point out that this text was in 2616: http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.3 and also in 2068 (section 14.3). So, we've gotten this far without the Web blowing up, and as the link below points out, people are relying on this behaviour; i.e., if we change the requirement, we'll make servers (e.g., google.com) non-conformant. On 22/06/2011, at 10:20 PM, 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 -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2011 23:27:47 UTC