Re: multiple Content-Encoding:'s

If changing the name to "Transfer-Encoding" is enough to resolve the
debate in favor of the simple, limited definition, I'm all for it.  Will
that really satisfy the people who want a wider notion for
Content-Encoding?

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: UUencode, (continued) Re: UUencode, Nathaniel Borenstein Re: UUencode, David Herron Re: UUencode, David Herron Re: UUencode, Nathaniel Borenstein multiple Content-Encoding:'s, David Herron Re: multiple Content-Encoding:'s, Nathaniel Borenstein Re: multiple Content-Encoding:'s, Greg Vaudreuil Re: multiple Content-Encoding:'s, Nathaniel Borenstein Re: multiple Content-Encoding:'s, Nathaniel Borenstein Re: multiple Content-Encoding:'s, Einar Stefferud Re: multiple Content-Encoding:'s, Nathaniel Borenstein <= Re: multiple Content-Encoding:'s, David Herron Re: multiple Content-Encoding:'s, Nathaniel Borenstein Re: what should Content-Encoding cover?, Bill Janssen Re: what should Content-Encoding cover?, Erik E. Fair Re: Comments on Draft RFC, Neil Katin Re: Comments on Draft RFC, Nathaniel Borenstein Re: Comments on Draft RFC, Tom Morris - Digital Equipment - Valbonne, France 25-Apr-1991 1542 Re: Comments on Draft RFC, Nathaniel Borenstein Re: Comments on Draft RFC, Vincent Lau Re: Comments on Draft RFC, Greg Vaudreuil

Previous by Date:	Re: multiple Content-Encoding:'s, Einar Stefferud
Next by Date:	Re: Content-Label, Nathaniel Borenstein
Previous by Thread:	Re: multiple Content-Encoding:'s, Einar Stefferud
Next by Thread:	Re: multiple Content-Encoding:'s, David Herron
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]