W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2015

Re: draft-reschke-http-cice vs discussions in Toronto @ IETF 90: use as response header field

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 12:23:50 +1100
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A7FECD51-72EB-423C-AFEB-770F766684BB@mnot.net>
To: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
On 2 Feb 2015, at 7:18 pm, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2015-02-02 09:07, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> Yes, but the semantics of those headers are exactly the same in both directions.
> I think that's the case here, too. No?

No. The existing, client-to-server semantic of Accept-Encoding is "For the response associated with this request, I will accept the following encodings..."

In the server-to-client direction, the proposed semantic is "For some unbounded set of future requests, I might accept the following encodings..."

There are a number of subtle differences there, especially about the scope of applicability -- one of the most ill-defined areas in HTTP metadata. 

Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 9 February 2015 01:24:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:43 UTC