Timeline for Why Content-Encoding gzip rather than Transfer-Encoding gzip
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 3, 2022 at 1:37 | history | protected | CommunityBot | ||
| Sep 9, 2014 at 4:30 | vote | accept | Jyotirmoy Bhattacharya | ||
| Sep 29, 2013 at 21:41 | comment | added | Jo Liss | Related: stackoverflow.com/questions/11641923/… | |
| Sep 13, 2012 at 11:23 | answer | added | Jon Hanna | timeline score: 16 | |
| Jun 28, 2010 at 18:31 | comment | added | Sky Sanders | + for a good question. | |
| Jun 28, 2010 at 5:46 | history | edited | Sky Sanders |
not a bug
|
|
| Jun 28, 2010 at 5:39 | answer | added | Sky Sanders | timeline score: 16 | |
| Jun 28, 2010 at 4:54 | comment | added | Nathan Osman | No, this is not the case. Look at the python wrappers here. | |
| Jun 28, 2010 at 4:09 | comment | added | swanson | I dont know much about this area, but if this is true this would be very helpful for python API calls. Currently you need to read the request into a temporary file-like buffer then do the decompression with a separate gzip call -- it is kind of a pain. | |
| Jun 28, 2010 at 3:59 | history | asked | Jyotirmoy Bhattacharya | CC BY-SA 2.5 |