W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: Static Table Entries

From: Kulkarni, Saurabh <sakulkar@akamai.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 16:59:34 -0500
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: "Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management)" <robby.simpson@ge.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D0094451.91AD%sakulkar@akamai.com>
Well even if say content-type: text/html is used 10% of the time, isn’t it
good to have one of these rather than having an empty entry. I am not
proposing enumerating all the combinations, its just to replace the
content-type: empty-string with an entry with non-empty string value. So
for values different from text/html you can still use the index with a
different value, but for text/html you can just refer to the entry.

- Saurabh

On 8/7/14, 2:50 PM, "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 7 August 2014 14:27, Kulkarni, Saurabh <sakulkar@akamai.com> wrote:
>> Since now we have switched the static table to the lower indices, we
>> should try to see if we can populate the entries if possible with their
>> most-popular values. For e.g. Œcontent-encoding: gzip¹ is better than
>> Œcontent-encoding: <empty>¹. Having an empty value made sense when we
>> always added entries to header table before, but now it just seems like
>>we
>> are missing an opportunity to further get some compression thru
>>populating
>> all the headers.
>
>I just went through the list; there really isn't much that we can add
>that is unambiguously good like that.
>
>Content-Encoding seems like the only good example.  Cache-Control:
>no-cache too.
>
>But see previous comments regarding changes.

Received on Thursday, 7 August 2014 22:00:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:10 UTC