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

Re: h2#404 requiring gzip and/or deflate

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:44:30 -0800
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNeL3+xSZCGNQPmSxSb=m+jhZ_zBY9qgkskFCrNPHmWW5w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
imho, just doing gzip is the most interoperable thing to do given Jesse's
interesting data.
'transcoding' from gzip to other deflate-containing formats shouldn't be
that expensive, assuming it was needed.
-=R


On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 25 February 2014 13:08, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:
> >  * Make 2.0 change the name to add "zlib" explicitly alongside
> gzip+deflate
> >  * Add a note that deflate has confusion *in 1.1* and instructing
> 1.1<->2.0
> > gateways to enforce correct deflate/zlib labeling or re-encoding.
>
> I think perhaps if we do want to *mandate* gzip+deflate that this
> would be the best way to do it.  It would be trivially possible to
> translate "zlib" into "deflate" at a 2.0->1.1 intermediary.
>
> The question is whether the advantages of deflate over gzip warrant
> it.  I have no expertise, but it doesn't sound like they are
> substantial enough to warrant the extra complexity.
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2014 21:44:57 UTC

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