-- Forwarded message --
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 00:18:04 +0100 (CET)
From: Henrik Nordstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jon Kay [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Henrik Nordstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Content-Encoding and storage forma
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Jon Kay wrote:
So, are you
I think our decision not to keep just encoded versions around
immunizes us from that one; I don't see how a redecoding could arise,
as encoded versions follow different paths to encoding-accepting
clients than decoded versions to unaccepting, purist clients.
I do not quite follow what
Applying Content-Encoding in an accelerator makes sense, and can be done
reasonably well. Applying Content-Encoding in a general purpose Internet
proxy is a different beast and you then need to be very careful.
Yes, indeed.
Looking at the spec, I've decided to add a squid.conf flag to turn
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Jon Kay wrote:
I think our decision not to keep just encoded versions around
immunizes us from that one; I don't see how a redecoding could arise,
as encoded versions follow different paths to encoding-accepting
clients than decoded versions to unaccepting, purist
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, Jon Kay wrote:
...regardless of that last sentence, virtually all browsers appear to
use Content-Encoding to indicate message encoding rather than entity
encoding. Virtually none support Transfer-Encoding of any sort.
Content-Encoding is what a web server would generally
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Jon Kay wrote:
So far, there is one difficult and thought-provoking question about
this design: object storage format. Should it be stored encoded once
an encoding is done (using Vary headers to figure out circumstances,
as in the spec)? Should it stay decoded like
