- From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 22:12:17 +0900
- To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- CC: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Fred Akalin <akalin@google.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2013/08/17 1:49, James M Snell wrote: > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Roberto Peon<grmocg@gmail.com> wrote: >> I view it as liberating-- as the compressor is now freed from worrying about >> normalization, etc. which, if done, should be done at a higher layer. >> > > FWIW, I don't believe anyone had said anything about normalization... > valid UTF-8 octets, yes, but not normalization. The compression > mechanism is really not affected by whether or not we say UTF-8 > here... Yes indeed, this should be clearly layered. Compression can be done binary (making sure we have a compression method that works well for UTF-8, and even better for ASCII). Checking for valid UTF-8 can be done at the end. And please note that checking for valid UTF-8 can be really fast, I'd guess something like two to three machine instructions per byte. But still we don't need to do it when a proxy just moves the headers from left to right. Unicode Normalization then is again one level higher, and depends on the header in question, as I already wrote. Regards, Martin.
Received on Saturday, 17 August 2013 13:13:17 UTC