- From: Roland Bluethgen <calocybe@web.de>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 02:13:17 +0100
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- CC: Stephen Battey <Stephen.Battey@vega.co.uk>, www-html@w3.org
Boris Zbarsky wrote: > Surely you mean Transfer-Encoding, not Content-Encoding... > Content-Encoding means the content is actually encoded, should be > cached encoded, and should be saved encoded if the user decides to > save it. Transfer-Encoding means the content is just encoded for the > duration of the transfer and is decoded immediately upor > reception.... As to my knowledge, Content-Encoding is regularly used to transmit content compressed, for example by mod_gzip for Apache. Transfer-Encoding, if used, is set to "chunked" most of the time, which has a certain advantage for transferring dynamically generated content. As I understand RFC 2616, both could be used if compressed transmission is desired, though the RFC is not very clear about this: OTOH it says "the content-coding is a characteristic of the entity identified by the Request-URI" (which supports your claims regarding caching and storing), on the other hand "a non-transparent proxy MAY modify the content-coding", which is somehow contradictory. And it says, the entity-body "is [typically] only decoded before rendering or analogous usage". IMHO it's arguable that storing a downloaded page on disk is kind of "analogous usage".
Received on Thursday, 23 January 2003 20:12:24 UTC