- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 10:08:57 +1300
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2014-02-26 08:28, Martin Thomson wrote: > On 25 February 2014 11:07, Michael Sweet wrote: >> I'd have to check the old mailing list logs from 1998, but I think it >> wasn't intentional but a mistake based on the compression keyword >> values (none, compress, deflate, gzip) - the same sort of mistake >> that's been made by HTTP implementors due to the unfortunately >> confusion between zlib the format and deflate the encoding name being >> used when zlib is meant. > > Do you think that this is something that we can realistically fix? > People have put up with bad "deflate" in HTTP/1.1, but do you think > that there is any chance that we can address that problem in HTTP/2 by > saying "deflate MUST be RFC1950, reject otherwise"? I would think the obvious would be better: * Make 2.0 change the name to add "zlib" explicitly alongside gzip+deflate * Add a note that deflate has confusion *in 1.1* and instructing 1.1<->2.0 gateways to enforce correct deflate/zlib labeling or re-encoding. Saves a few bytes if deflate/zlib is used at all and 1.1<->2.0 gateways can translate either just the label, or the encoding as necessary. Amos
Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2014 21:09:24 UTC