- From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 22:17:08 -0000
- To: <www-qa@w3.org>
"Alex Rousskov" <rousskov@measurement-factory.com> > On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Jim Ley wrote: > > A user is likely to be confused if they open a URI (say > > http://www.example.org/stuff.html ) with content-type: text/html and > > content-encoding: gzip, in their HTML UA, they then save it locally and they > > can no-longer use their HTML UA to open it. > > Two counter-arguments: First, a decent UA should be able to "open" a > compressed document, especially if it saved the document as such. I don't agree with this, how is it supposed to know it's compressed? Whilst what you say is undoubtedly true for HTTP, it's a completely useless, and suggests that content-encoding has basically no use on the web today, and transfer-encoding should be used, if this is so the document very much needs to be saying this, as content-encoding is the one that is used. > Second, and perhaps more important, an average user should not know > that the resource is "HTML". The resource should be named > http://www.example.org/stuff to avoid confusion. They still know it's a document they viewed in their web browser, then saved it, and now can no-longer open it, hiding the extension does nothing to solve this problem, which is the key one, the average user would also not have a gunzip available. Jim.
Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2003 17:17:37 UTC