- From: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 18:36:58 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- cc: "William Chan (³ÂÖDzý)" <willchan@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, 18 Mar 2014, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > On 18 Mar 2014, at 9:32 am, William Chan (???) <willchan@chromium.org> wrote: > > > Just to be clear, you only mean server support for gzip, not client support, right? > > Yes - just this issue, not the client side. I think a client and server is always involved, so I think this issue is client compression of request content and server handling that compressed input. I think that server originating gzip compressed content and the client being required to handle it is NOT the issue being discussed here? > > > > The client support is very helpful for performance. > > > > As far as server support, I think it'd be great to have too, but the interop problems are indeed problematic. > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > > I'm beginning to think this issue might be in the "diminishing returns" bucket. > > > > Does anyone think that we firmly need this, or is it just a nice-to-have? > > > > Cheers, > > > > -- > > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 18 March 2014 01:37:37 UTC