Re: current HTTP/2 spec prevents gzip of response to "Range" request from Patrick McManus on 2014-03-26 (ietf-http-wg@w3.org from January to March 2014)

From: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 22:02:57 -0400
To: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
Cc: K.Morgan@iaea.org, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNq72sLThOcoJ5FbWU8VC47A+_6=2koOv2Lcp8=qoi3vBw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Matthew,

On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>wrote:

> \Surely that would be *easier* to scavenge
>

my reticence is not about implementation complexity in my client.

>
>
> The mandatory implied Accept-Encoding codifies a well worn and useful
>> optimization.. Transfer-Encoding doesn't have the same track record to
>> justify adding it at the same level.
>>
>
> It's not at the same level; CE is above TE.
>

I'm sorry to have created confusion. I mean I don't support the same level
of conformance (i.e. the suggested MUST decode) - not the same level in the
application. as I say, I'm pretty neutral on defining negotiation of it.

Received on Wednesday, 26 March 2014 02:03:24 UTC