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

Re: Re-work of op-code patterns

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 09:38:36 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWXHY_Ao3jfs4-GSOPww9MA4xUToWZjrVp3n0WX1=nY-Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
Cc: RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 27 January 2014 08:43, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote:
> With the proposed change what would 0b1000000 signal?

An indexed header field, the first one.

> If we are going to add a new opcode, I'd prefer to see the literal header
> encodes both start with the same symbol:

The problem with your proposal is that it takes a rare condition
(Encoding context change) and assigns a shorter opcode to it.  The
cost is that header indexes greater than 30 will take an extra byte.
If you really want this, run the numbers and let us know what it
costs.
Received on Monday, 27 January 2014 17:39:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:23 UTC