- From: Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>
- Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 03:14:10 +0300
- To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Fred Akalin <akalin@google.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 02:32:19PM -0700, Roberto Peon wrote: > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Fred Akalin <akalin@google.com> wrote: > > > > - I may be missing something, but I'm not sure why we need a string > > literal to be both length-delimited and have an end marker. I'd prefer just > > having the length and assigning the short encoding for EOS to something > > else. > > > > Since length is in bytes instead of bits, but huffman encoded things are > bit based, you need either to represent length in bits (which makes the > lengths bigger), or you need to ensure that the padding used to get to the > next byte boundary at the end of the string cannot be interpreted as a > valid huffman-code. You don't need EOS code for this. This is because there are more than 128 source symbols and target alphabet is binary, and thus there exists 8+ bit code. Prefix of that can act as padding, it can't be mixed up with valid symbol. -Ilari
Received on Friday, 18 October 2013 00:14:34 UTC