W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: Design Issue: GZIP flag on DATA Frames

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 09:27:45 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbeuieZ_tT=8ej6sQi94nRC79=rF1Fy8H_hNFhvH2_A7OA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Well... if I know that I'm sending a file that is already compressed,
why should I be required to attempt running it through the compressor
again? I get what you're saying, but requiring that content always be
compressed is not always optimal.

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
> In message <CABP7Rbfb92Vxrmxj6fKdt+jpO_Qknq8FRjsu5GZW=17uoi4OFg@mail.gmail.com>
> , James M Snell writes:
>>Currently the spec includes a requirement that all user-agents MUST
>>support gzip.. specifically:
>>If we're going to include this requirement,  ...
> How about just nuking Accept-Encoding, and say that _all_ content is
> gzip'ed, but that it is allowed to use the '-0' uncompressed mode ?
> --
> Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
> phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
> FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
> Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Tuesday, 21 May 2013 16:28:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:11 UTC