RE: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries

On 19 April 2014 04:03, Martin Thomson wrote:
> contrary to my earlier message, I am reminded that when it comes to optional features,
> we have had experience to suggest that they are not a good way to get interoperability.
>

> On Apr 18, 2014 4:53 PM, Matthew Kerwin wrote:
>> ... or replace the setting with a MUST support ...



+1

Make it non-optional, particularly if we are considering removing mandatory support for C-E gzip due to the "semantic transparency" problem. I think the origin should always have an option for compression.

This email message is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Information contained in this email message and its attachments may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to others. Also please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.

Received on Saturday, 19 April 2014 19:22:05 UTC