httpd-docs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rich Bowen <>
Subject Re: Why x-gzip rather than gzip?
Date Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:09:46 GMT
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Christoph Schneegans wrote:

> Hello!
> The Apache documentation at
> <>
> says the following about the AddEncoding directive:
>   "(...) you should always use x-gzip and x-compress for these two
>    specific encodings."
> What's the motivation for this suggestion? I think it should be dropped.

I don't think we're at liberty to just change that. You need to talk to
the standards people about this. It's not something that we can just
change in the documentation and make it so.

> Internet Explorer doesn't support "x-gzip", but "gzip". This is legal
> because of its "Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate". However, some proxy

It seems that this is a non-complience on their part, not our Apache's

> servers like WebWasher remove the Accept-Encoding header from all
> requests. According to
>   "If the client didn't specifically request a particular form
>    Apache will use the form given by the AddEncoding directive."
> Apache will then answer with an "Content-Encoding: x-gzip" if e.g.
> "AddEncoding x-gzip .gz" is set. IE is unable to uncompress such an
> entity and displays the download dialog. "AddEncoding gzip .gz" would
> work fine in this scenario, and I think the Apache documentation should
> contain this suggestion rather than the current one.

Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of earth
And danced the sky on laughter-silvered wings
 --High Flight (John Gillespie Magee)

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message