- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 20:20:27 +0100
- To: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
* Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >I disagree. > >The overhead is minute, for instance the filename is optional and seldomly >used in HTTP context. > >The CRC32 it brings is a very good integrity check which suprisingly >often uncovers trouble. > >Gzip further has the advantage that there are plenty of command line >tools available for it, whereas deflate is quite hard to produce with >regular tools. I think `gzip` is a good match for HTTP/1.1 where compression got added later and the headers are so large that you do not feel the 18 bytes of minimum overhead, but for a mandatory-to-implement compression scheme I do not think tools make for a good argument, and I note that libraries in my experience more commonly support the RFC 1950 zlib format or raw RFC 1951 streams than RFC 1952 gzip streams; if checksums and an estab- lished format are important, RFC 1950 has only 6 bytes minimum overhead (2 bytes flags, 4 bytes Adler32 checksum). -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Friday, 21 February 2014 19:20:46 UTC