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

Re: Should Web Services be served by a different HTTP n+1?

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:18:31 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwjkTxGdNKVGWVzheYRaWR4U3kWcCMO2NdO2NQi+zvzWEw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>wrote:

> On 2013-01-24 16:48, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
>>
>>  I am not very interested in the relative packing efficiency of a class
>> of algorithms I don't want. I don't care how many bytes the compression
>> saves on the wire if it requires me to pipeline my messages through a
>> compression library.
>>
>> Anything that involves hash functions is going to be a non starter as
>> far as I am concerned.
>>
>
> Then I would recommend that you participate in the discussion about that
> format; that's why we're having it.
>

Which is exactly what I was doing

And I have been more than active in this conversation for your comments to
be rather patronizing.


I thought that the conversation was taking HTTP2.0 to a place that I think
incompatible with good Web Services practice. People assured me that they
want one protocol. I then stated that if they want one protocol the
conversation is going in the wrong direction.

I don't care how you polish the compression scheme, it is still going to be
a compression scheme.

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2013 16:19:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 24 January 2013 16:19:06 GMT