- From: 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
- Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 18:41:10 -0700
- To: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAA4WUYjy0ogAxr=MX0j41X2ywxQzh9UTqRqjajRGvY=i6n8J2A@mail.gmail.com>
Sorry, I was too terse. Yes, I agree with your interpretation. On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 6:36 PM, David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com> wrote: > > > 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 01:41:40 UTC