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


From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 09:53:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWBT-tWK9owDXgZ7LDcYoPBPMpe9vQuW=6JVVun464hMw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Cc: RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>
On 18 October 2013 09:23, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
> How about an implementation considerations section where we talk about how
> implementations might leverage the spec in various scenarios?

I think that it's more than that.  An encoder doesn't have to track
the entire table, but they do need to track sizes if they ever intend
to use the static table.  As long as they don't intend to reuse the
entries, then they don't have to keep the actual values.  An encoder
doesn't need to track entry sizes unless they want to use the static

I think that's the only consequences to this for an encoder.  The cost
to the encoder is pitifully small when compared to the work and
commitment required by a decoder.  Just make a note of this and move
Received on Friday, 18 October 2013 16:54:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:18 UTC