On 2015-02-09 02:23, Mark Nottingham wrote: > 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..." I agree that there's a difference here, but I fail to see how it's critical. I could rephrase the definition to clarify that the information applies to the request it was sent with, and that future requests can have different behavior. > There are a number of subtle differences there, especially about the scope of applicability -- one of the most ill-defined areas in HTTP metadata. Anything besides the freshness issue? Best regards, JulianReceived on Monday, 9 February 2015 07:11:36 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:43 UTC