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

Re: RFC6585+HTTP/2.0 := 101

From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 17:54:12 +1200
Message-ID: <50122D04.5060708@treenet.co.nz>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 27/07/2012 12:31 p.m., Jonathan Ballard wrote:
> In Re: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6585 (page ~2)
>
> I looked at this RFC as if I wanted to derive it into the revision for 
> 2.0:
> """
>     HTTP/1.1 428 Precondition Required
>     Content-Type: text/html
>     <html>
>        <head>
>           <title>Precondition Required</title>
>        </head>
>        <body>
>           <h1>Precondition Required</h1>
>           <p>This request is required to be conditional;
>           try using "If-Match".</p>
>        </body>
>     </html>
> """
> (instead of from scratch)
> """
>     HTTP/2.0 428 Precondition Required
>   <head id=428>
>         Date: <time>&xhtml.now;</time>
>         <meta>
>
>           Content-Type: text/html+xml
>
>           Title: Precondition Required
>         </meta>
>   </head>
>
>   <body itemscope itemtype="urn:http:status">
>         <h1  itemprop=name>Precondition Required</h1>
>         <p   itemprop=description>This request is required
>                                   to be conditional;
>                                   try using "If-Match".</p>
>         <img itemprop=image />
>
>         <a   itemprop=url />
>   </body>
> """

I think the thing to notice here is the 295% *increase* in bandwidth 
consumption for content meta data. After removing the unnecessary 
whitespace.

AYJ
Received on Friday, 27 July 2012 05:54:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 July 2012 05:54:54 GMT