Excerpts from internet.ietf-822: 26-Apr-91 Re: multiple Content-Encodi..
David Herron(_at_)twg(_dot_)com (2304)
Just read your latest note Natheniel (lunch was between the above
and now) and agree that Greg's compromise is a good one. It would
be good if the RFC mentioned which agent (originating UA, or intervening
gateway MTAs) is generally responsible for Content-{Encoding,Conversion}:
but simply punt on defining Content-conversion for now
Not completely.. specify the general form (comma-seperated list
with semantics on the order of presentation). But punt on what
you can put in each member of this list.
This strikes me as pretty useless. Here we have this otherwise
well-specified RFC, and then we add an section describing a header that
we can't really tell people how to use! It seems to me it should stay
in the realm of an experimental protocol for a while, which is NOT the
way I'm thinking of the rest of this document...