IANA registry for content/transfer encodings

[julian.reschke@…]

The current spec mentions an IANA registry, but doesn't point to it (it is at ​http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-parameters). Also, it talks about the "initial" registry contents, although in the meantime, at least one encoding ("pack200-gzip") has been added to the registry.

This probably should be rephrased somehow.

[julian.reschke@…]

Make this consistent with our other registry related changes:

• spell out the registration procedure in a subsection
• add a sub section to the IANA registration section

Note that the registry at <​http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-parameters> is shared by both Transfer-Codings and Content-Codings, so I would propose to define the registry procedure in Part 1 (for Transfer-Codings), and have Part 3 (Content-Coding) refer to it.

[julian.reschke@…]

define a single encoding registry, move definition of gzip & friends to part 1.

[julian.reschke@…]

Latest summary: ​http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2010AprJun/0031.html

[julian.reschke@…]

proposed patch for parts 1 & 3

[julian.reschke@…]

From [808]:

Clarify not to share coding names between the content coding and the transfer coding registry unless the encoding is the same (see #143)

[julian.reschke@…]

From [942]:

Remove "expert review" requirement for transfer/content coding, it is already implied by "specification required" (see #143)