- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 12:38:36 +1200
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 16/07/2015 10:39 a.m., Ben Maurer wrote: > SRI is difficult to use in many of these cases. For example, at Facebook, > we often dynamically construct thumbnails of photos in order to avoid > having to store both high-res and low-res versions of a photo. We might > link you to /profilepics/64x64/4.jpg which is a 64x64 version of 4.jpg. > Since this file is computed on the fly, we don't know the hash of the file. > But we'd still like to serve it with a "static" tag so that it can avoid > situations. This is where simply doing chunked encoding is designed to prevent corruption. Transfers lacking the terminal 0-byte chunk are visibly corrupt to all recipients of the message. Amos
Received on Thursday, 16 July 2015 00:39:41 UTC