Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

semantics: clarify that "identity" is not a valid value for "content-encoding" #388

Closed
reschke opened this issue Jun 30, 2020 · 4 comments
Closed

semantics: clarify that "identity" is not a valid value for "content-encoding" #388

reschke opened this issue Jun 30, 2020 · 4 comments
Assignees
@reschke
Labels
editorial semantics

Comments

@reschke
Copy link
Contributor

reschke commented Jun 30, 2020

No description provided.

@reschke reschke self-assigned this Jun 30, 2020
@reschke reschke mentioned this issue Jun 30, 2020
Merged
@annevk
Copy link
Contributor

annevk commented Jul 1, 2020

It might be worth checking that clients indeed treat it the same as an unknown value.

@reschke
Copy link
Contributor Author

reschke commented Jul 1, 2020

That's an interesting question as well; but it seems to be orthogonal to this issue.

Handling content codings is tricky (such as wrt ordering, repetition, and unknown encodings), It would indeed be good to have tests.

reschke added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 1, 2020
@reschke
Make it clearer that "identity" really is only for "Accept-Encoding" …
f488834 
…(restores normative language from 2616) (#388)
@reschke
Copy link
Contributor Author

reschke commented Jul 2, 2020

-> move req into field definitions

royfielding added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 4, 2020
@royfielding
Merge pull request #389 from httpwg/reschke-388
90dae4a 
Make it clearer that "identity" really is only for "Accept-Encoding" (restores normative language from 2616) (#388)
@royfielding
Copy link
Member

fixed by #389

@ioggstream ioggstream mentioned this issue Aug 18, 2020
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@reschke reschke

Labels
editorial semantics
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@reschke @annevk @royfielding