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

Nope

On Mar 17, 2014, at 11:50 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> It sounds like we have consensus to close #424 with no action. Anyone have a problem with that?
> 
> 
> On 18 Mar 2014, at 2:43 pm, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 17 March 2014 18:36, David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com> wrote:
>>> I think a client and server is always involved, so I think this issue is
>>> client compression of request content and server handling that compressed
>>> input.
>>> 
>>> I think that server originating gzip compressed content and the client
>>> being required to handle it is NOT the issue being discussed here?
>> 
>> Correct on both aspects.  This is *request* compression.
>> 
>> I'll note that there is nothing stopping a client from trying and
>> maybe failing to compress, or for specific applications to require
>> support of compression, or to have client send content types that use
>> compression in preference to uncompressed content.  But requiring
>> support for a specific content-encoding is, as I think we've
>> concluded, perhaps a little too ambitious.
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
> 
> 
> 
> 

_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair