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

Re: Do we kill the "Host:" header in HTTP/2 ?

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 13:10:00 -0800
Message-ID: <CABP7Rbet285101rRFiMGXQHHn0N8CeQaWemGXfgr1Xuz=o945Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Cc: Roland Zink <roland@zinks.de>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
What does this buy us? Two or three bytes typically? Not worth it. Just
send the method name.

method just isn't a high priority for optimization.
On Feb 1, 2013 12:33 PM, "Adrien de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com> wrote:

> Not really.
>
> Just reserve a number to indicate the method name is following in text
>
> Or reserve a range for private use
>
> Could even largely avoid sending method at all.  If it were treated like a
> field, default to GET you would only need to send if it changed
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 2/02/2013, at 9:28, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> > On 2013-02-01 21:17, Adrien de Croy wrote:
> >> We see ftp:// all the time
> >>
> >> As for using a character or 2 for the method. Why? What is wrong with
> numbers?
> >>
> >> 1 = GET
> >> 2 = HEAD
> >> 3 = POST
> >> etc.
> >> ...
> >
> > Experimenting with new method names becomes really really hard.
> >
> > Best regards, Julian
>
>
Received on Friday, 1 February 2013 21:10:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 1 February 2013 21:10:29 GMT