[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: gzip (was blogs.msdn.com)

To: Dare Obasanjo <kpako@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: gzip (was blogs.msdn.com)
From: Mark Pilgrim <pilgrim@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 14:10:45 -0400
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, atom-syntax@xxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/>
List-id: <atom-syntax.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:atom-syntax-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <> <>
Reply-to: Mark Pilgrim <pilgrim@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 09:50:31 -0700 (PDT), Dare Obasanjo <kpako@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I talked to Scott and he said they only provide HTTP
> Compression to clients speaking HTTP 1.1 not HTTP 1.0

Did he say why?  Gzip compression was part of the HTTP 1.0
specification (see RFC 1945, sections 3.5 and 10.3).  It seems an odd
choice to make.  Or was it an accidental byproduct of other choices?

-- 
Cheers,
-Mark

Follow-Ups:
- Re: gzip (was blogs.msdn.com)
  - From: Bill Kearney
- Re: gzip (was blogs.msdn.com)
  - From: Dare Obasanjo

References:
- gzip (was blogs.msdn.com)
  - From: Sam Ruby
- Re: gzip (was blogs.msdn.com)
  - From: Dare Obasanjo

Prev by Date: Re: gzip (was blogs.msdn.com)
Next by Date: Re: gzip (was blogs.msdn.com)
Previous by thread: Re: gzip (was blogs.msdn.com)
Next by thread: Re: gzip (was blogs.msdn.com)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread