Re: h2#404 requiring gzip and/or deflate

+1
On Mar 31, 2014 1:36 PM, "Patrick McManus" <mcmanus@ducksong.com> wrote:

> 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.
>>
>>
>