W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1994

Re: Connection Header

From: David - Morris <dwm@shell.portal.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 21:24:28 -0800 (PST)
To: http working group <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.90.941222211534.27831B-100000@jobe.shell.portal.com>


On Thu, 22 Dec 1994, Jim Seidman wrote:

> If we go with something like an HTTP-based image hinting scheme, I don't
> think the rate of adoption is a big an issue as you imply.  A browser like
> Netscape could continue to have multiple parallel connections to older
> servers if it wanted to.  Path (1) as you've described is really not a path
> at all - it's just staying with the limits of what we have today.
> 
> I think the most important point you make is that an image hinting approach
> will have a greatly higher UPP than a parallel connection scheme, especially
> over very slow connections.  The way I see it, there are two main goals:

For http hinting to achieve the generally accepted goals, the information
would have to be provided when the rendering engine needs it.  That could
imply that the http server actually analyze the html document for <img>
references or have the reference analysis preformed in advance and stored
in some form so that the http server can anticipate and provide the
information.  If we are in the http-ng timeframe with multiple logical
streams on the connection then of course this is moot but otherwise a
fair compromise might be for a browser to open 1 additional connection for
the purpose of requesting image shape information while the primary
file is transfered.  While some of the costs exists they would be minimzed
compared with four or more images actually flowing concurrently.

Dave Morris
Received on Thursday, 22 December 1994 21:25:49 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:10 EDT