W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1996

Re: Sticky stuff.

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 23:09:08 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199608122109.XAA20842@wsooti04.win.tue.nl>
To: hallam@etna.ai.mit.edu
Cc: jg@zorch.w3.org, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1319
>[...] however the question which I was raising was whether 
>compressing the body of the message was more relevant than
>compressing the headers.

Here is a version of the answer:

 - sticky headers: 1-4% traffic savings
 - compressing text/html and text/plain entities in relayed
   responses: 20-45% traffic savings

Now, why is there so much fuss over sticky headers?  Ever since Accept
headers dropped below 1.4K, they are a solution in search of a
problem.  If this group were to produce a sticky header spec, the spec
would only distract vendors from implementing optimizations which are
actually worth the effort.

Received on Monday, 12 August 1996 14:13:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:17 UTC