On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 14:10:10 -0700 "Roy T. Fielding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Aug 6, 2007, at 1:10 PM, Nick Kew wrote: > > > PRs 23287 and 42993, and recent discussion here, show up some > > issues with handling Content-Encoding. Specifically regarding > > mod_deflate, but also relevant to any other filters that > > affect or are affected by Content-Encoding. > > I'll just reiterate that the problem is messing with content-encoding > in the first place. Well, the popularity of first mod_gzip and now mod_deflate indicates a clear demand for it. And it *should* work cleanly in our filter architecture. > The filter should primarily be working with > transfer-encoding. Transfer-encoding is an altogether different filter. I don't see the relevance. > It is absurd for a run-time server to dynamically > encode or decode attributes of the representation. Why? A lot of people want compressed data. > Content-encoding > should only be messed with by content-generators, specifically to > provide a dynamic mapping of non-encoded variants for gzipped files > to a *different* URIs than the one that is defined to be > content-encoded, and a third (base) URI for negotiation. which would seem to preclude dynamic or proxied contents. -- Nick Kew Application Development with Apache - the Apache Modules Book http://www.apachetutor.org/
