The following reply was made to PR mod_negotiation/1772; it has been noted by
GNATS.
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Dean Gaudet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Ronald Tschalaer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: mod_negotiation/1772: Can't handle both "Accept-Encoding: gzip"
and "Accept-Encoding: x-gzip"
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 11:42:42 -0800
>Roy I'm not so clear on this one. The spec does say gzip/x-gzip and
>compress/x-compress should be considered equivalent, so that is a bug.
>But I can't find words in rfc2068, rfc2048 or rfc2045 which say we should
>do this for all content encodings.
It's a good idea anyway. My long-standing argument against the use of
"x-" prefixes is that the only way to make a clean transition between
them and a registered type is to strip any "x-" before comparison, thus
making any use of "x-" a waste of time.
+1 in concept, but I'd prefer it if the two-character comparisons were
not done using strncmp. For example
>> ! if (!strncmp(name, "x-", 2))
sucks performance-wise when compared to
if (name[1] == '-' && (name[0] == 'x' || name[0] == 'X'))
It would be even better if it parsed the optional q-value, which was
recently added to the Accept-Encoding syntax (in spite of my objections).
....Roy
