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

Re: Reasons to not use huffman encoding?

From: Adrian Cole <adrian.f.cole@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 13:11:28 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHzwyDstXgjTG4VMQx0rm6_3gmi4BHtuZBK6W1bC1_k+UNQ-Yw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gábor Molnár <gabor.molnar@sch.bme.hu>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Thanks for the inputs.  So, seems case-by-case, with most decisions being
relatively static.

if huffmanNotDisabledDueToSomeCPUConcern
and worthItToCheckLengthWithAndWithoutHuffman
and foundHuffmanShorter
huffmanEncode

Is that a fair summary?

I'm guessing that in most cases, you'll have a buffer with a known length,
so above comparison is probably worth it in most cases.
-A


On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Gábor Molnár <gabor.molnar@sch.bme.hu>wrote:

> There are cases when encoding without Huffman simply produces smaller
> input (for example, if your header value consists of uncommon letters or
> binary data).
>
>
> 2014-01-31 Adrian Cole <adrian.f.cole@gmail.com>:
>
> Hi, all.
>>
>> HPACK allows the sender to decide whether or not to encode with huffman.
>>  When, in your opinion, would the sender choose not to?
>>
>> -A
>>
>
>
Received on Friday, 31 January 2014 21:11:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:24 UTC