There seems to be troubles in paradise. cc'ing httpd who had
recently updated mime-types.
I'm not speaking about IE7's refusal to assign quality quotients to
their Accept: alternatives, no, this is a bit trickier and it looks
like we are in the wrong.
An example document,
On 11 Sep 2007, at 23:26, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Best I can figure, this is really application/x-tar+x-gzip (or would
that be application/x-gzip+x-tar?) if we don't want to (and we don't
want to) advertise the content stream as gzip'ed (preventing automatic
inflation which would cause
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
An example document, /dist/httpd/httpd-2.2.6.tar.gz is requested and
...
Best I can figure, this is really application/x-tar+x-gzip (or would
that be application/x-gzip+x-tar?) if we don't want to (and we don't
want to) advertise the content stream as gzip'ed
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
There seems to be troubles in paradise. cc'ing httpd who had
recently updated mime-types.
Best I can figure, this is really application/x-tar+x-gzip (or would
that be application/x-gzip+x-tar?) if we don't want to (and we don't
want to) advertise the content
Nick Kew wrote:
On 11 Sep 2007, at 23:26, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Best I can figure, this is really application/x-tar+x-gzip (or would
that be application/x-gzip+x-tar?) if we don't want to (and we don't
want to) advertise the content stream as gzip'ed (preventing automatic
inflation
Nikolas Coukouma wrote:
Due to the lack of a real standard (AFAIK ...) that doesn't use content
encodings, it's hard to say what is correct.
Agreed...
If it's decided to avoid the use of Content-Encoding (is the hash and
signature problem that bad?)
Yes if mirrors can't be
Nikolas Coukouma wrote:
It should also be noted that this has been discussed here before, in
February of 2003
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/200302.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Actually this wasn't; that subject was filename munging and content-type
inference. This is
Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On 9/12/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But within IE7, the request is truncated at 4864kb instead of the
expected 6mb. My best guess is that IE believes it can grok the file
as it's advertised content type.
Is it possible that the browser invokes
