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

Re: #445: Transfer-codings

From: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 12:26:24 +1000
Message-ID: <CACweHNB8pVqaxAEf+Ro-daXESSJwqVHwdN=7StqYfAckGOhPMQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 9 April 2014 10:47, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

>
> On 4 Apr 2014, at 4:52 pm, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au> wrote:
>
> >> Also, how should a recipient handle a stream that has DATA frames with
> different
>  
> values for encoding?
> >
> > By decoding each as it arrives, the same way it would handle a stream
> with the same encoding every frame. Two gzip'd frames don't add together to
> make one big gzip file.
>
> One of the useful attributes of HTTP transfer-codings is that
> intermediaries who want to avoid re-compressing a stream's payload can do
> so when both sides support compression, by simply passing it through.
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Isn't it much more likely that intermediaries will actually implement this
> if they can do that form of pass-through?
>
>
That assumes the HTTP/1.1 side is doing T-E, and I'm not sure how common
that currently is. Judging by discussions in on the list, I'd imagine "not
very." Perhaps someone with better traffic visibility could give us some
numbers.

-- 
  Matthew Kerwin
  http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/
Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2014 02:26:51 UTC

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