- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 19:48:15 +1000
- To: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
I’m saying that the most concrete way of encouraging servers to accept content-encoded request representations is to give them a means of declaring their support for doing so — e.g., in HTML — not a generic SHOULD in a place that resource authors will never look. On 28 Apr 2014, at 7:44 pm, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > On 2014-04-28 08:53, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> >> On 27 Apr 2014, at 2:03 am, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >> >>> Not convinced. >>> >>> If it's a characteristic of the representation, why can't the client sending the representation decide on it? >> >> Because that would be a unilateral decision, just like the client deciding that it’s going to send application/foobar+baz to your resource. > > I don't understand the comparison. > > A client can send any payload type it wants. The server can reject it if it doesn't understand it. This applies both to media types an content encodings. > > What I'm looking for is to *encourage* servers to understand C-E gzip. > > (And yes, the compression changes might address my use case, but I haven't looked into those yet) > > > ... > > Best regards, Julian -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 28 April 2014 09:48:52 UTC