On 9 Jul 2013, at 15:56, Tim Bannister <[email protected]> wrote: > On 9 Jul 2013, at 15:49, Eric Covener <[email protected]> wrote: > >> What to do in 2.4? Maybe still early enough to still change 2.4 behavior? > > Roy Fielding links this to bug #39727… > > I still want to push for gzip Transfer-Encoding: in trunk (and maybe 2.4 as > well). It works, but my code is far too ugly to consider committing:
I may as well add that there are two reasons for wanting to see this in httpd. First, I think availability in httpd will (slowly) drive adoption by clients because of httpd's share of the market. There's no real issue with legacy clients because existing browsers don't request gzip transfer-encoding (proxies are more of an issue). Second, most webservers treat transfer-encoding as two states (identity or chunked) and some even store this in a bool. Retrofitting compressed transfer encodings into this kind of code is much more of a challenge. I think httpd is the only webserver (or reverse proxy) with the foundations for this kind of enhancement. -- Tim Bannister – [email protected]
