W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: Support for gzip at the server #424 (Consensus Call)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 18:03:55 +0200
Message-ID: <535BD8EB.6050003@gmx.de>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 26.04.2014 09:36, 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.

Not convinced.

If it's a characteristic of the representation, why can't the client 
sending the representation decide on it?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Saturday, 26 April 2014 16:04:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:30 UTC