- From: Martin Nilsson <nilsson@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 18:29:53 +0200
- To: "Roberto Peon" <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 21:57:38 +0200, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote: > > Can you tell us more about your or Opera's operational experience with > equivalent features? > I'd be rapt at any such presentation! > We have Opera Mini that uses several different protocols, both similar to HTTP as well as of the persistent TCP connection type. These are all binary protocols using different versions of request-response, RPC, push features, as well as compression of different sorts. We have Opera Turbo, which is essentially a modified HTTP with prioritized, out-of-order pipelining and some simple compression. Finally we have integrations with different 3rd party technologies, some of which are mentioned on the press release pages http://www.opera.com/press/releases/2004/11/04/ http://www.opera.com/press/releases/2007/02/06/ Not really an answer to your question though, I'm afraid. I would need more time (and meetings) to collect that... > > I agree totally that better approaches on the compression side likely > exist. > I'm surprised at the numbers, though. Our experience in the past was that > headers were significantly more compressed than you're seeing here. > I'm using the same data as the http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~amer/PEL/poc/pdf/SPDY-Fan.pdf and when using the evaluation set they use I actually get somewhat better compression values (probably due to better header normalization). /Martin Nilsson -- Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Received on Friday, 8 June 2012 16:30:24 UTC