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

Re: Static Table Entries

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 13:26:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVi7E3BMfYL1V3sS0Dn5WGJ2MaN1aCsxFoQmNtV4EfNog@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management)" <robby.simpson@ge.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 7 August 2014 13:11, Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management)
<robby.simpson@ge.com> wrote:
> Looking at the current entries, I believe it would be useful to add at
> least the following:
> - :method PUT
> - :method DELETE
> - :method HEAD
> - :status 201

The values we have there are based on a frequency analysis provided by
Akamai.  The methods and status codes that we have account for some
ridiculously large proportion of requests.  And note that every entry
makes the header table larger, which increases the number of bytes
needed to reference the header table.

> And perhaps:
> - :method
> - :path (even this would save ~4 bytes IIUC, vs. the first occurrence)
> - :status

Bare values aren't necessary.  You can reference an entry with a value
and provide a different value.

> I find it odd that common content types are not in the static table

See above.  There just isn't enough commonality in these header fields
to justify adding the extra entries.  We just don't have enough good
data.  And getting good data is only a small part of the problem;
we're basically done here, so changes like this require overpowering
justification.
Received on Thursday, 7 August 2014 20:26:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 9 September 2019 17:48:20 UTC