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

Re: Non-browser uses (was Re: disabling header compression)

From: Chris Burdess <dog@gnu.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 23:58:29 +0000
Message-ID: <52AB9F25.8070202@gnu.org>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 13/12/13 22:34, Martin Thomson wrote:
>> Header compression, however, is at best a "nice to have". I'm all for
>> sending fewer bits down the wire, but the header compression mechanism
>> itself provides no direct benefit to the REST API developer who is
>> still required to deal with arcane, overly verbose header field value
>> formats, encoding schemes and ambiguities. The only benefit realized
>> at that level will be improved performance.
> 
> When you are at the point that you are saturating links, a few bits
> does make a difference.  We never measured any performance benefits
> from the binary encoding, but it can't be worse.

True. Also the binary encoding has some as yet undefined flags that
could be used to select a type of compression of the header value,
allowing you to specify a compression algorithm best suited to the data
on a header-by-header basis.
Received on Friday, 13 December 2013 23:58:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:20 UTC