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

Re: Addressing gzip focus

From: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 10:45:27 +1000
Message-ID: <CACweHNAd0QDKYkLDh0EawQ3sTExwS5FnWZsg2JOzT1UkpogQ-A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 15 May 2014 08:51, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au> wrote:

> My original proposal for the compression setting/flag actually supported
> this sort of extensibility, without extra rtts. When I get to a computer
> and can search the list archive I'll be able to point to the discussion
> that lead to the current compromise. I might even be able to dredge up some
> of the proposed wording.
>

​Here's the original proposal: <
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2014AprJun/0059.html>

Later versions [1] reduced field sizes to 8 bits, and cleaned up some
wording, but the main gist remained the same. I also wavered back and forth
on whether/how to include an identity encoding (0x0).

This is the point where we decided to go with a single bit gzip-or-nothing
flag: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2014AprJun/0301.html
>

Cheers

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2014AprJun/0149.html​
Note that the github link is dead.



-- 
  Matthew Kerwin
  http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/
Received on Thursday, 15 May 2014 00:45:55 UTC

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