RE: Rechartering HTTPbis

On 25.01.2012 04:58, Robert Brewer wrote:
> Amos Jeffries wrote:
>> For example, simply truncating the common header names down to 1 or 
>> 2
>> bytes and moving to a better timestamp format we could meet all the
>> HTTP/2.0 requirements:
>>   * chop out a visible % of HTTP traffic size
>>   * be syntactically incompatible with HTTP/1.x
>>   * capable of trivially gatewaying 1.1-over-2.0 and vice versa
>>   * with full semantic and feature equivalence
>>   * and lower barriers to implementation (fingers on telnet + fewer
>> bytes = win)
>
> Given that the extreme majority of HTTP traffic is automatically
> generated, typically via use of a framework, I suspect that far more
> humans read HTTP messages directly than write them directly.
> Consequently, fewer bytes in header names is probably more of a loss 
> due
> to the cognitive load than a win due to reduced keystrokes. It might 
> be
> chosen to reduce packet size, but shouldn't be chosen to save 
> fingers.


Given my very brief abstract "truncating the common header names" how 
easily would you (already familiar with HTTP/1.1) interpret this blob:

  GET / HTTP/2.0
  H:example.com
  CC:max-age=0
  CNC:close

  HTTP/2.0 200
  D:20120125-153200UTC
  ET:aswa$sf345
  EL:5
  \n
  hello

Hard? no.

~30% more compact.


>
> And I can't believe I'm even writing this, because it's *way* too 
> early
> to start offering or debating solutions when we've hardly begun
> discussing requirements.

:) Stage 2 - enumerate the options. But yes. lets step back.


AYJ

Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2012 02:50:16 UTC