- From: James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:41:09 -0500
- To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg\@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
>>>>> "RP" == Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> writes: RP> The header names are almost completely handled with the pre-seeded RP> dictionary, so they really don't affect the character frequency RP> count and/or thus the huffman encoding. RP> Arithmetic coding gets better compression ratios, at the expense of RP> gobs of CPU and complexity. I don't think that is a good tradeoff :/ It is sometimes hard to guess whether huffman is chosen due to inertia, arithmetic patent agnst, or good technical reasons. It is good to know that in this case it is the latter. I may not have expressed my primary point quite well enough though: Although I doubt that right now there is any text in the headers which is both common enough to warrent inclusion in a static table and not seven-bit clean, my point was that even if such text shows up over time, the fact that it is not seven-bit should not prevent its inclusion in future, extended versions of the static table. As such specifying that text is defined to be utf-8 and the use of a static huffman table should not contra-indicate each other. -JimC -- James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com> OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2013 23:50:46 UTC