title: Serving gzipped content directly — bad thing to do?
body: <p>I have my website configured to serve static content using gzip compression, like so:</p>
  
  <pre class="lang-css prettyprint-override"><code>&lt;link rel='stylesheet' href='http://cdn-domain.com/css/style.css.gzip?ver=0.9' type='text/css' media='all' /&gt;
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>I don't see any website doing anything similar. So, the question is, what's wrong with this? Am I to expect shortcomings?</p>
  
  <p>Precisely, as I understand it, most websites are configured to serve normal static files (.css, .js, etc) and gzipped content (.css.gz, .js.gz, etc) only if the request comes with a <code>Accept-Encoding: gzip</code> header. Why should they be doing this when all browsers support <code>gzip</code> just the same?</p>
  
  <p><strong>PS:</strong> I am not seeing any performance issues at all because all the static content is gzipped prior to uploading it to the CDN which then simply serves the gzipped files. Therefore, there's no stress/strain on my server.</p>
  
  <hr>
  
  <p>Just in case it's helpful, here's the HTTP Response Header information for the gzipped CSS file:</p>
  
  <p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/CVd9F.png"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/CVd9F.png" alt="Screenshot 1"></a></p>
  
  <p>And this for gzipped favicon.ico file:</p>
  
  <p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/hOvZh.png"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/hOvZh.png" alt="Screenshot 2"></a></p>