- From: James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:34:03 -0500
- To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg\@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
>>>>> "JMS" == James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> writes: JMS> we'll be able to huffman code anything that is flagged JMS> as ASCII, and won't be able to touch the rest. Would that really be an issue? The static huffman can only really be for the common strings, yes? Which mostly means the header names and not the header values? So even if the headers were limited to ascii the tables wouldn't help much for most of the values? (As an aside, Would arithmetic be of any better value than huffman, here?) Using one bit for each string to specify utf8-text blob vs binary blob, and using the former for everthing know to be text, seems the best overall choice. And if any non-ascii utf8 sequences become common enough, they can be added to future revisions of the static table just as easily as 7-bit strings can be. -JimC -- James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com> OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6
Received on Monday, 11 February 2013 21:41:55 UTC