W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: Header Serialization Discussion

From: Adrien W. de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 23:44:08 +0000
To: "James M Snell" <jasnell@gmail.com>, "RUELLAN Herve" <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <eme0b11005-a323-4146-8d02-757c869c5920@bombed>


------ Original Message ------
From: "James M Snell" <jasnell@gmail.com>
>On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 8:28 AM, RUELLAN Herve
><Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr> wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>>
>>>    - The true utility of the common prefix length mechanism is 
>>>questionable.
>>>  Aside from the potential security risks, I questioning just how 
>>>effective it's
>>>  going to be in practice. (What header fields do we expect to 
>>>actually use it in
>>>  practice?)
>>
>>  Common prefixes are very efficient for URLs: the paths often share 
>>some common part at their beginnings. They are also useful for other 
>>type of data such a date and integers, but these could be optimized 
>>using typed codecs.
>>
>
>I generally prefer the typed codecs for dates and integers. I'm
>struggling to see what, beyond URLs, the prefixes will be useful for,
>really. I mean, I get the theory, I understand their use, but I'm just
>not convinced how often it will be practical outside of the request
>URI.

Referer as well



Adrien

>
>
Received on Monday, 15 April 2013 23:44:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:12 UTC