- From: Adrien W. de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 23:44:08 +0000
- To: "James M Snell" <jasnell@gmail.com>, "RUELLAN Herve" <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
------ Original Message ------ From: "James M Snell" <jasnell@gmail.com> >On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 8:28 AM, RUELLAN Herve ><Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr> wrote: >> >>[snip] >>> >>> - The true utility of the common prefix length mechanism is >>>questionable. >>> Aside from the potential security risks, I questioning just how >>>effective it's >>> going to be in practice. (What header fields do we expect to >>>actually use it in >>> practice?) >> >> Common prefixes are very efficient for URLs: the paths often share >>some common part at their beginnings. They are also useful for other >>type of data such a date and integers, but these could be optimized >>using typed codecs. >> > >I generally prefer the typed codecs for dates and integers. I'm >struggling to see what, beyond URLs, the prefixes will be useful for, >really. I mean, I get the theory, I understand their use, but I'm just >not convinced how often it will be practical outside of the request >URI. Referer as well Adrien > >
Received on Monday, 15 April 2013 23:44:34 UTC