- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 21:25:49 +1200
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 26/04/2014 7:36 p.m., Roy T. Fielding wrote: > On Apr 26, 2014, at 12:00 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: >> On 26.04.2014 03:40, Mark Nottingham wrote: >>> On 25 Apr 2014, at 5:13 pm, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >>> >>>> On 25.04.2014 02:30, Mark Nottingham wrote: >>>>> Re-visiting this; I still think we can close #424 with no action. Any disagreement? >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> I got distracted by the other gzip discussion. >>>> >>>> I really still believe that we should try to improve the situation; just because we can't require it for all chains of intermediaries doesn't mean we shouldn't ask for support in origin servers... >>> >>> "ask" and "require" are very different things... what are you thinking of in terms of text? >>> >>> Cheers, >> >> "to allow compression of big request payloads, origin servers SHOULD support gzip content coding in request messages" > > I don't think that is appropriate. Content-Encoding is generally not > governed by the server -- it is a characteristic of the representations, > so it will be determined by the resource owner's desires and not by the > protocol engine. An origin server cannot implement that SHOULD even if > the developers wanted to, since it would interfere with method semantics. > Ahh.. transfer coding to the rescue. Amos
Received on Saturday, 26 April 2014 09:26:20 UTC