W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2013

RE: More header compression comments

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>
Message-ID: <6C71876BDCCD01488E70A2399529D5E52F4C4EDB@ADELE.crf.canon.fr>


> -----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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:15 UTC