- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 14:49:05 -0700
- To: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
- Cc: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 14 March 2014 14:30, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com> wrote: > I just pointed this use case out as an argument *against* requiring a new header providing the uncompressed length. I understand. I don't think that we could realistically place a blanket requirement on this. It would be more a case of, if you don't know who you are sending to, then it might be best to use this mechanism: <insert new header field>. The fact that people avoid the issues we're talking about sometimes is great, but we still have to be able to make recommendations about what is safe to do.
Received on Friday, 14 March 2014 21:49:32 UTC