httpd-docs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christoph Schneegans <>
Subject Why x-gzip rather than gzip?
Date Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:14:27 GMT

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.

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


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

View raw message