Re: h2#404 requiring gzip and/or deflate

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.
>
>