> If DEFLATE/RFC1951 is what was intended, and what is still desired, then
> the specification is correct, although it is missing a bibliography
> entry for the actual RFC.
Yes, this is definitely what was intended, and it does reference 1951 in
that section, but the bib. entry is missing.
> I will point out, however, that everyone seems to have implemented it
> wrong. Let me emphasize that: everyone. Certainly, some of this is the
> fault of errors in the Java documentation. But it also has to make you
> wonder if the spec itself doesn't, somehow, need improvement.
Well, it could say "don't be fooled by the incorrect Sun documentation", I
guess. ;-) Did anybody get it wrong that *wasn't* using Java or was led to
assume that the output of the Java classes was to be trusted?
I did think we needed samples to validate with because I didn't trust any
particular library without independent verification that it was producing
nothing but the DEFLATE stream. I'd be curious if the samples in the spec
are correct. I produced them by hand by attempting to strip the gzip header
off the output of gzip itself.
I asked a few times for people to give me samples I could verify with so
that we'd flag any problems...
-- Scott
