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

Re: Making Implicit C-E work.

From: Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 19:16:40 -0600
To: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
Cc: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20140429191640.7e032f2734466ac406a6b4ed@bisonsystems.net>
Matthew Kerwin wrote:
> 
> I still think you're putting too much emphasis on C-E, particularly in
> cases where it doesn't (or shouldn't) apply. What you want is
> compressed data (fewer bytes) on the wire. HTTP has limited options
> in this regard, and the Right Way™ (T-E) is out of the picture; but
> using C-E is at best a hack, but more likely a flat out
> misunderstanding of its purpose. And the current text madates, in an
> internet standard, that everyone support the hack; and by extension
> promotes the misunderstanding.
> 

+1, the ends don't justify the means. The "Other Right Way" is still
media types, specifically appending +gzip to HTML/CSS/JS identifiers;
if gzip is explicit in Content-Type it doesn't need to be implicit in
C-E. Achieves the performance win without all the headaches, I think.

-Eric
Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2014 01:16:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:30 UTC