- From: Ben Laurie <ben@algroup.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 23:49:10 +0000
- To: "David W. Morris" <dwm@xpasc.com>
- CC: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>, "'ietf-http-wg@w3.org'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
David W. Morris wrote: > > On Wed, 31 Dec 1997, Ben Laurie wrote: > > > > make sense to specify that the field carry the base64 encoding > > > of a compressed form of the headers (using "deflate"?), which > > > would probably result in a net savings over the original header > > > sizes. But I don't think it's worth another food-fight over this > > > detail. > > > > It's a shame we have come to this pass, but I'm beginning to think that > > it is the only answer. Base64 is one answer, but wouldn't URL encoding > > also be easy enough and more compact? > > > > If a cheap and easy to implement compression scheme can be used, then > > why not? (In which case, I'd guess base64 becomes a good idea). > > In either case, imbeded LWS must be allowed to follow the spirit of > possibly continued header values and headers which may be too long. > > Also, they encoding rule should probably be something like: > > 1. Compose the subset of headers to be digested > 2. Combine into a single string with CR/LF between headers > 3. Encode the whole string. Isn't that exactly what Jeffrey was suggesting? Cheers, Ben. -- Ben Laurie |Phone: +44 (181) 735 0686|Apache Group member Freelance Consultant |Fax: +44 (181) 735 0689|http://www.apache.org and Technical Director|Email: ben@algroup.co.uk |Apache-SSL author A.L. Digital Ltd, |http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL London, England. |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache
Received on Wednesday, 31 December 1997 18:51:17 UTC