- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 15:28:53 +1300
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2014-02-26 10:21, Martin Thomson wrote: > On 25 February 2014 13:08, Amos Jeffries wrote: >> * 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. > > I think perhaps if we do want to *mandate* gzip+deflate that this > would be the best way to do it. It would be trivially possible to > translate "zlib" into "deflate" at a 2.0->1.1 intermediary. > > The question is whether the advantages of deflate over gzip warrant > it. I have no expertise, but it doesn't sound like they are > substantial enough to warrant the extra complexity. I am thinking we need to have a note about fixing the deflate interoperability at the gateway regardless of whether deflate (or zlib) is listed as a default. Lets not permit the issue to continue with HTTP/2 senders. Amos
Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2014 02:29:21 UTC