W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2012

RE: Rechartering HTTPbis

From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:49:48 +1300
To: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <e08222dfdd410e5b192d79f88fffecf4@treenet.co.nz>
On 25.01.2012 04:58, Robert Brewer wrote:
> Amos Jeffries wrote:
>> For example, simply truncating the common header names down to 1 or 
>> 2
>> bytes and moving to a better timestamp format we could meet all the
>> HTTP/2.0 requirements:
>>   * chop out a visible % of HTTP traffic size
>>   * be syntactically incompatible with HTTP/1.x
>>   * capable of trivially gatewaying 1.1-over-2.0 and vice versa
>>   * with full semantic and feature equivalence
>>   * and lower barriers to implementation (fingers on telnet + fewer
>> bytes = win)
>
> Given that the extreme majority of HTTP traffic is automatically
> generated, typically via use of a framework, I suspect that far more
> humans read HTTP messages directly than write them directly.
> Consequently, fewer bytes in header names is probably more of a loss 
> due
> to the cognitive load than a win due to reduced keystrokes. It might 
> be
> chosen to reduce packet size, but shouldn't be chosen to save 
> fingers.


Given my very brief abstract "truncating the common header names" how 
easily would you (already familiar with HTTP/1.1) interpret this blob:

  GET / HTTP/2.0
  H:example.com
  CC:max-age=0
  CNC:close

  HTTP/2.0 200
  D:20120125-153200UTC
  ET:aswa$sf345
  EL:5
  \n
  hello

Hard? no.

~30% more compact.


>
> And I can't believe I'm even writing this, because it's *way* too 
> early
> to start offering or debating solutions when we've hardly begun
> discussing requirements.

:) Stage 2 - enumerate the options. But yes. lets step back.


AYJ
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2012 02:50:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:53 GMT