Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 06:59:40PM +0100, Sander Striker wrote:
> > > Wow! Obviously the code/default config need to be extremely
> > > conservative!
> >
> > Yes. But browsers change (evolve to better things we hope), so config has
> > my preference. Hardcoding in default rules is badness IMHO. But maybe that's
> > just me.
>
> -1 if these restrictions are hardcoded in the module like it was
> before Sander's patch. These problems should be handled by the
> configuration of mod_deflate not by hardcoding rules.
I guess I don't follow this about restrictions being hardcoded in the
module. When you say "restriction" I just see default behavior. A
default behavior is hardcoded into Apache or modules for so many
things.
I wonder what the real disagreement is... It is hard to tell exactly
who wants what. It looks like there is violent agreement in some
areas.
Are these the choices so far?
. mod_deflate shoud stay as it was (only compress text/html, can't
add more mime types
(I don't see that anybody was in favor of this.)
. mod_deflate defaults to only compressing text/html (and may perhaps
have further restrictions in the interest of been fool-proof) in
case the admin takes the bare minimum steps to enable it, but a
directive will be available so that admins can turn on compression
for more mime types
and I guess there are subchoices here on whether the default
set of directives in httpd.conf would be very conservative or would
simply turn on compression for everything we think is safe until we
find out from admins that some browser doesn't do this or that
correctly
It would be helpful to some of us if, forgetting the vetos for a
moment, people could put a concise wording of their position in the
STATUS file and allow folks to indicate how they feel about it. (Can
you tell that I can't keep everything straight?)
--
Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP public key at web site:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
