Re: Addressing gzip focus

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/