W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1997

Re: new editorial issue RANGE_WITH_CONTENTCODING

From: Dave Kristol <dmk@bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:52:45 -0500
Message-Id: <346CD63D.63DECDAD@bell-labs.com>
To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4671
Jeffrey Mogul wrote:
> Dave Morris writes
>     one of the 'justifications' for byte ranges was the ability to
>     continue retrieving a previously interrupted response. In that
>     mode, if I were the developer of the client, I would want the byte
>     range to apply to the compressed form.
> If one starts with three assumptions (which might even be "facts"):
>     (1) The interruption affects the tail of a retrieval.
>     (2) Most HTTP retrievals are attempting to transfer the whole resource
>     value
>     (3) The compression algorithms that we actually use are one-pass
>     algorithms with finite windows, and so it is possible to extract
>     a large portion of the uncompressed form from a partial copy
>     of the compressed form.
> [...]

I think what you're missing is that most servers store files (er,
entities?) already compressed as, for example, .gzip files.

Can anyone offer an example of a server that compresses content on the
fly and returns it in that form?

Dave Kristol
Received on Friday, 14 November 1997 14:56:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:21 UTC