- From: Henrik Frystyk <frystyk@bay.lcs.mit.edu>
- Date: Wed, 12 Oct 1994 13:40:14 +0500
- To: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
A general problem that I see in the proposals until now is that we have no guarantee that the images are in fact on the same server as the main document. Often this is _not_ the case and then it doesn't help to keep the connection open nor is it easy for the server to get the size of the image. I think a general solution must be based on at least two connections. First the main document gets retrived. If the client is text-based then fine - no more connections are made. If not then the client can sort the requests for inline images and make simultaneously (multi-threaded) connenctions to the servers involved. These can then be multipart, MGET or whatever solution we come up with. This might not seem very elegant but I think it is necessary in order to keep the flexibility and backward compatibility which in my opinion is required. Another solution could be that the client has a special header-line saying: keep the connection open - I will tell yon when to close but then I think it's another protocol than the HTTP we are heading for. -- cheers -- Henrik Frystyk > The following assumes that the client gets the html document and > then sends the server a list of images to send next, reusing the > same connection. > > I like the idea of being able to get the image sizes in advance of > the data, but would also like to be able to interleave the image > data streams. This way users see all of the images start to appear > concurrently, rather than one by one. > > One simple idea is to use the segmented encoding approach and include > the stream number with the segment length. The initial info on image > size/type would specify the stream number for each image. > > If this sounds too difficult, then at least the server could sort > the images by size and send the small ones first.
Received on Wednesday, 12 October 1994 18:40:07 UTC