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

Re: FYI... Binary Optimized Header Encoding for SPDY

From: Adrien W. de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 05:15:04 +0000
To: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "James M Snell" <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, "Mike Belshe" <mike@belshe.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <em51bad768-459a-465b-9933-0957f139d7bd@bombed>

------ Original Message ------
From: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: "James M Snell" <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>;"Mike Belshe" 
<mike@belshe.com>;"ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 3/08/2012 4:35:00 p.m.
Subject: Re: FYI... Binary Optimized Header Encoding for SPDY
>On 2012/08/03 2:48, James M Snell wrote: 
>>On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 1:27 AM, Poul-Henning 
>>>For instance, could we get rid of the %-encoding of URIs by allowing 
>>>UTF8 ? 
>>It would be possible, for instance, to begin using IRI's directly 
>>translating those to URI's first. 
>Great idea. Please note that that will also save a few bytes (but 
>that's definitely not the main reason for doing it). 
>>Doing so, however, does not eliminate the 
>>need for %-encoding, 
>Yes, a '#' or '?' in a path segment and similar stuff still have to be 

if we're defining a new binary-safe transport for header values, 
shouldn't we try to avoid all multiplexing / escaping and parsing of 

e.g. just put querystring in another "header" instead.  Then anything 
can contain '?'

same with fragments (#) although I thought these weren't allowed on the 

In fact the concept of a single string which is a URI could be 
deprecated for 2.0 and just be sent as individual fields in a request.

gatewaying back to 1.1 would require assembling a URI from the pieces, 
but that should be easy.  

Seems a bit nuts to go binary and leave some parts as overloaded string 
fields requiring string parsing and escaping.


>>and there are a range of possible issues that could 
>>make this problematic. 
>Could you list up the issues you're thinking about? (I don't want to 
>say there are none, but I can't at the moment come up with something 
>that wouldn't already be around currently.) 
>Regards, Martin. 
Received on Friday, 3 August 2012 05:15:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:05 UTC