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: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:01:11 -0600
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOhbOnCHCp7fKeG6QLKcdoYhAXcL1nkW6220+9xb-W5Gyw@mail.gmail.com>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 24 January 2013 19:01:41 GMT