User-Agent: Opera/7.02 (Windows NT 5.0; U) [en] Build Identifier: I cannot say for sure if this is a real bug but for me the RFC isnt absolutely clear. Its that I want to make a server-proxy which compresses our server responses which works fine if you know the length of the whole compressed file. But now when Tomcats sends the content of a dynamic page the content is sent in chunkes. Now I'd like to forward the request again in compressed chunks. I know that after the RFC if I specifiy Content-Encoding the whole content should be encoded and not the individual chunkes, but then this works under Opera 7. So I tried to set Transfer-Encoding to chunked, gzip which should in my opinion achieve exactly that what I want, namely the chunkes beeing decoded, but this seems not to work under mozilla neither. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: see: http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616.html
related: bug 145216.
Somebody told me that I didn't make my point clear enough, so i'll try again: Problem: Transfer chunked and gzipped, but the whole content-identity is not yet know, so only the individual chunks can be gzipped. Solution 1 (not correct after RFC): Response Header: Content-Encoding: gzip Transfer-Encoding : chunked Solution 2 (correct IMHO): Response Header: Transfer-Encoding: chunked, gzip In both cases the data is as I already mentioned gzipped chunk by chunk, so each chunk has its own gzip header and footer. Mozilla should support solution 2, solution one would be nice to have (Opera 7 supports it), but is not necessary.
Changed serverity to enhancement, because looking at the RFC again this is not a bug.
Severity: normal → enhancement
According to RFC 2616, content codings are applied to the entity before transfer codings. IOW, it is invalid to gzip a chunked message. the message must be gzip'd first, and then chunked. Mozilla supports gzip'd chunks, using Content-Encoding: gzip, but it does not support Transfer-Encoding: gzip (which is already filed as bug 68517. marking as duplicate. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 68517 ***
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 15 years ago
Resolution: --- → DUPLICATE
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.