- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 15:10:00 +1300
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 28/10/2014 1:05 p.m., Nicholas Hurley wrote: > I'll chime in. Short answer - no, these have not changed my mind at > all. If anything, they've reinforced my view. > > These numbers are, once again, along the same lines of other > changes we've already rejected as a working group - relatively > miniscule improvements that are not worth invalidating testing we > have already done. If this change improved the compression ratio > significantly then we might have something worth investigating in > another implementation draft. These numbers don't indicate any > significant improvement in compression ratio, and so don't warrant > any further investigation. Huh? -10% bandwidth reduction == "miniscule" savings ? Statistically speaking 5% change in any one use case is "sigificant". Amos -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUTvr4AAoJELJo5wb/XPRj7P0IAM0DP+rTRY0xpvdmBSE8FqSn Cy3vQQCPHfiJo0yTZUEpqLamRr5sipCfMed9244eHBnoF+0zDisPI2S1nJ6WlR+C lfHg8XH8ph4dTf4oLPGY+cWkJ5vpWZVKcjwa92JboUUnjFke52s3ROdXlGoK3oQn UKXAcT3D+XiBxAqfbz4LfPBZdyGmWg/ctn93oOu3ufFGP/XS8zXcHkF3fV1aReHK gb/zmjdMUzvF1v2nRhDEZtKYPlzh9FH7M/FA9QoTiq2C0MdJOJ6RiJQh1n2TXNJB C5FRyJdOStVi+o3IXD5mQo0wISIQDFodB9M8l8zFCLzKPHxE7vPgUpBtjCmimCI= =HveC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 28 October 2014 02:10:37 UTC