30% (the number I've seen thrown around) isn't compelling? On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com> wrote: > FWIW, I would rather not use Huffman encoding at all, just to reduce the > complexity of implementation. IMHO it doesn't offer a compelling > improvement in overall header compression... > > On Jan 31, 2014, at 4:11 PM, Adrian Cole <adrian.f.cole@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 >>> >> >> > > _________________________________________________________ > Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair > >
Received on Friday, 31 January 2014 22:11:39 UTC