Re: Bandwidth

Shawn Steele (shawn@aob.org)
Fri, 10 May 1996 13:08:30 -0600


From: Shawn Steele <shawn@aob.org>
Message-Id: <9605101308.ZM1394@aob.org>
Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 13:08:30 -0600
In-Reply-To: "Gregory J. Woodhouse" <gjw@wnetc.com>
To: "Gregory J. Woodhouse" <gjw@wnetc.com>, Shawn Steele <shawn@aob.org>
Subject: Re: Bandwidth
Cc: www-html@w3.org

> I can appreciate your concern over bandwidth, and I aagree that HTML
> should not become unnecessarily verbose, but I think the best way to
> reduce bandwidth is through enhancing HTTP. The improved cache
> control mechanisms in HTTP 1.1 should make more difference than
> changes to HTML could.

I agree that improvements in HTTP can improve transfer rates greatly,
but if an HTML file is similar to a different file, duplicate
information still needs to be resent.  (How many of the same headers
does webcrawler or yahoo send when filling search requests).  HTTP
can't solve that problem because it's still one file as far as it's
concerned, it can't cache just part of a document, especially when that
document has a different name than a previous version.

Some sort of HTML includes would solve that repetativeness.  Server
side includes won't work because they still have to resend the
information.  Sure a few hundred bytes of HTML may not seem like a lot
compared to the Megs of mpegs that are being transferred theses days,
but at least until everyone has a cable modem in their home and the
backbones are a couple magnitudes faster those bytes will add up pretty
quickly.

Just my opinion.

- shawn

Shawn Steele
Webmaster
Association of Brewers