- From: RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 14:47:26 +0000
- To: Gábor Molnár <gabor.molnar@sch.bme.hu>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Gábor Molnár [mailto:gabor.molnar@sch.bme.hu] > Sent: jeudi 5 septembre 2013 11:56 > To: Martin Thomson > Cc: HTTP Working Group > Subject: Re: More header compression comments > > 2013/8/27 Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>: > > I've been going through this, and it occurred that most cases for > > header indexing use an arrangement where a 0 value indicates a > > literal, and 1+ is an index. > > > > [a] So, why not start header table indexing at 1 and save the confusion. > > This is exactly what came to my mind when reading the latest draft. > AFAIK, the initial chromium header compression implementation had a bug > related to this confusion. I'm OK with this change: it will make the spec simpler and will have negligible impact on compression. Hervé.
Received on Friday, 6 September 2013 14:48:05 UTC