Re: CONTENT-ENCODING: FIXED revised proposed wording
Koen Holtman (koen@win.tue.nl)
Thu, 24 Jul 1997 20:15:57 +0200 (MET DST)
Jeffrey Mogul:
>
Some nitpicks:
> (1) If the content-coding is one of the content-codings listed
> in the Accept-Encoding field, then it is acceptable. (Note that,
> as defined in section 3.9, a qvalue of 0 means "not acceptable".)
This is slightly self-contradictory.
> (2) The special "*" symbol in an Accept-Encoding field matches
> any available content-coding.
..except those listed explicitly in the header field.
> If no Accept-Encoding field is present in a request, the server MAY
> assume that the client will accept any content coding. In this
> case, if "identity" is one of the available content-codings, then
> the server SHOULD use the "identity" content-coding.
This SHOULD was not present in 2068, and I don't think adding it is a
good idea. A server which knows that a legacy client accepts an
encoding (e.g. by looking at the user-agent field) should be
encouraged to send content in this encoding.
>(4) In section 14.9 (Cache-Control), add
> | "no-transform"
>to the BNF for cache-request-directive.
Are we allowed to make such an addition at this point in the standards
process?
Koen.