- From: 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
- Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 10:22:58 -0800
- To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Received on Saturday, 16 February 2013 18:23:25 UTC
This sounds very similar to Willy's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013JanMar/0324.html Willy and I go back and forth about it: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013JanMar/0333.html On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>wrote: > HTTP 1.1 has a request/response pattern. This covers 90% of needs but > means that if the protocol is followed correctly forces a round trip delay > on each content request. Which of course leads to various browsers pushing > the envelope and pushing multiple requests out before responses have come > back. > > With content streams this is not necessary of course... In fact that is > pretty much the purpose of having streams. > > Which suggests a need for a Multi-GET method to allow a request for a list > of content... > > If we had such a method then the format would be something like > > MGET <Common Headers> List <URI, Content header> > > And the typical communication pattern of a browser would be: > > GET /toplevel.html > MGET </image1.jpg /image2.jpg ...> > > Given this particular communication pattern which has an implicit delta > encoding, do we really need to worry about a separate delta encoding? > > > -- > Website: http://hallambaker.com/ >
Received on Saturday, 16 February 2013 18:23:25 UTC