W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2014

Re: h2#404 requiring gzip and/or deflate

From: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 16:33:40 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNr-j21v-TFCE0b11ToQEUYCsLmsx0s4UCTaJFOZQ4-SRw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: K.Morgan@iaea.org, Albert Lunde <atlunde@panix.com>, Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>, Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, C.Brunhuber@iaea.org
Martin, I don't think you should take that as editorial as it conflicts
with some of the implicit-gzip use cases.

CE gzip was made a fixed part of the protocol, in part, because
intercepting intermediaries (or antivirus libraries as a subset of that)
were explicitly stripping negotiation for it for their own convenience.
Making it non negotiable enhances the robustness of the protocol against
that which is imo the right trade given the history here and the importance
of compression.

http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2010/07/12/velocity-forcing-gzip-compression/
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2645883/accept-encoding-headers-being-sent-by-browser-but-not-received-by-server



On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 31 March 2014 12:48,  <K.Morgan@iaea.org> wrote:
> > In rfc 2616, clients may opt out of the implicit "identity"
> content-coding by sending "identity;q=0" (see section 14.3 rule #4 at
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-14.3)
>
> I have no problem with that.  Unless I hear screams, I'll take your
> proposed text.
>
>
Received on Monday, 31 March 2014 20:34:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:25 UTC