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

Re: h2#404 requiring gzip and/or deflate

From: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 14:46:46 -0600
Message-ID: <CACuKZqFohu87DmjedH8uWgScc_5o32RcsR+6VoTgKFxbPJwH-Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
> The thinking when we put it into SPDY was that if you do gzip, you've
> effectively required a deflate implementation, so one may as well allow it.

If everybody can use either of the algorithms with ease, there's no
point to mandate both. I also agree with Bjoern's point that
gzip/deflate is pretty slow; enabling it may actually decrease
throughput in a lot of deployments.

Zhong Yu

> In the end, I'm ambivalent so long as there is a reasonable payload
> compression requirement.
> -=R
> On Feb 21, 2014 9:44 AM, "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 21 February 2014 09:38, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > No. Reverting to solely identity would be a huge step backwards.
>> That's what I thought.  Which would you prefer gzip + deflate or just
>> gzip?
Received on Friday, 21 February 2014 20:47:13 UTC

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