- From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:01:11 -0600
- To: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>
- Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:41 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org> wrote: >> The main one is that the receiver has to have enough memory to store the >> dictionary. > > I think this boils down to the argument on the other thread. Do the > gains for keeping state outweigh the costs? Note that given Roberto's > delta compression proposal, the sender can disable compression > entirely, so the receiver does not need to maintain state. Browsers > probably would not do this, due to our desire to optimize for web > browsing speed. For web services where you control the client, you > indeed would be able to disable compression. IMO we need stateful compression to be absolutely optional to implement. (If we choose to go with stateful compression in the first place. I think we shouldn't.) Nico --
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2013 19:01:38 UTC