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

Re: In Defense of Header Compresson

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:23:54 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwjnLPqyNS7ta_CMwc4F8Ep-rzpFj+F_imF=WtccjZ17XQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
There is quite a big difference in coding.

To implement tokenization you replace the RFC822
serializer/deserializer with one that implements a different syntax.

To implement a compression technique you stack the
compressor/decompressor in front of the RFC822
serializer/deserializer.


That makes quite a difference on small devices.

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:25 PM, David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
>
>> I like tokenization as a strategy as the same approach can be used for
>> both the JSON and the HTTP space saving. It also means that embedded
>> devices can even use the tokenized form as a replacement for header
>> and JSON syntax and only use one parser.
>
> Tokenization, as I under stand the usage here, represents compression
> using a predefined dictionary of codes and values. No different than
> using a compression technique such as LZW with a predefined standard
> dictionary. The key for either approach is the ability to verify
> compatible dictionary versions, obtain the correct version if needed,
> and for the dictionary to learn on the fly.
>
>



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2012 20:24:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 16 August 2012 20:24:28 GMT