W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: #445: Transfer-codings

From: Helge Hess <helge.hess@opengroupware.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 15:41:50 +0200
Message-Id: <C9639C69-C1EB-499E-B5D0-5E48662987D1@opengroupware.org>
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Apr 7, 2014, at 8:07 AM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
> But I have to respond to one particular type of comment that keeps coming up: "well-constructed sites which compressed their resources."
> 
> That's a big value judgement on what constitutes good site design. Yes, in lots of cases it makes sense to compress your resources and have multiple representations, especially for static resources; but what about the sites that aren't like that? Why is it bad site design to have a big resource that can be accessed with ranges?
> 
> At best it is wasteful to have to generate a large dynamic resource, and then serve only a portion of it. 

Maybe I'm off-track here, but aren't PDFs the common example for the usefulness of ranges plus TE?

You query the byte range required to display a specific page from the catalog, and then you would want to compress that for transfer.
I can imagine a set of resources which would work like that.

hh

P.S.: I didn't follow the whole thread, but a significant issue TE solves are ETag's in combination with content-negotiation.
Received on Monday, 7 April 2014 13:42:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:29 UTC