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

Re: Static Table Entries

From: Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management) <robby.simpson@ge.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 20:17:26 +0000
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D00AA5C5.3900B%Robby.Simpson@GE.com>
On 8/8/14, 4:04 PM, "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:


>On 8 August 2014 12:46, Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management)
><robby.simpson@ge.com> wrote:
>> One other issue I've found in the static table entries:  I've noted that
>> they are all in alphabetical order, which makes searching much easier.
>> However, there appears to be one outlier -- "accept."  Since "/" comes
>> before "/index.html", shouldn't "accept" come before "accept-charset",
>> etc.?
>
>Ordering is another area where we didn't have good enough data.

What kind of data would you be looking for there?  Search times?

>And yes, accept is lexically before accept-charset.  See previous
>comments. I'm sure that will annoy some people, but I'm honest enough
>to admit that I get a small amount of enjoyment from annoying the
>obsessive-compulsive.

Not sure the tradeoff in your enjoyment with annoying those with disorders
outweighs efficient implementation of searching the static table.

Granted, my code is not yet polished, but it seems to now require
additional entries/pointers for the index (if kept in alphabetical order
for searching) or searching the entire list (if kept in index order).  I'm
also guessing that some may not catch this while implementing.

Once again, not necessarily worth stopping the presses, but something we
should track if we have the chance to make changes.
Received on Friday, 8 August 2014 20:17:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:10 UTC