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

Re: Multi-GET, extreme compression?

From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 22:44:28 -0600
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOh0sLJBGdWpUqX6FAe40=FyKRWPyqMmMyAQF_Uy=94Z=g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> On 19/02/2013, at 3:26 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> HTTP 1.1 has a request/response pattern. This covers 90% of needs but means
>>> that if the protocol is followed correctly forces a round trip delay on each
>>> content request. Which of course leads to various browsers pushing the
>>> envelope and pushing multiple requests out before responses have come back.
>>>
>>> With content streams this is not necessary of course... In fact that is
>>> pretty much the purpose of having streams.
>>>
>>> Which suggests a need for a Multi-GET method to allow a request for a list
>>> of content...
>>>
>>> If we had such a method then the format would be something like
>>>
>>> MGET <Common Headers> List <URI, Content header>
>>>
>>> And the typical communication pattern of a browser would be:
>>>
>>> GET /toplevel.html
>>> MGET </image1.jpg /image2.jpg ...>
>>>
>>> Given this particular communication pattern which has an implicit delta
>>> encoding, do we really need to worry about a separate delta encoding?
>>
>> The problem here is that the user-agent needs to get the top-level
>> resource first, then it will know the names of the other resources.
>> We can probably do better.
>
> Nico,
>
> If I understand you, you're talking about making some really fundamental changes to the Web Architecture, which is squarely out of the WG's charter.

Is Phillip's proposal also out of charter?

> I don't mind discussing ideas and understanding how we got here, so long as they don't distract from our work. I get the feeling that this is starting to happen.
>
> Again, if you have a proposal, please write it up in detail and make it to the WG; endlessly discussing the minutia of a half-formed idea is not a productive use of anyone's time.

I... posted twice on this, within minutes.

Nico
--
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2013 04:44:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 February 2013 04:44:54 GMT