- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 12:53:27 +0100
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>, Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>, Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>, HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@varnish-cache.org>
On 2016-12-14 12:37, Martin Thomson wrote: > On 14 December 2016 at 21:51, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: >> Well, UTF-8 would also go through HPACK, but by eye-ball it seems >> that it would be more efficient. > > If you have lots of ASCII still, you can probably Huffman encode, > though if you have lots of non-ASCII, you need to watch out: a three > octet UTF-8 encoded codepoint turns into (worst case) 82 bits. Best > case is 58 bits (both of which are invalid, so maybe not). > > I can't remember, is there actually a good reason why we can't just > start shoving UTF-8 in header fields? I mean, h2 is probably OK with > this. Some APIs assume ISO-8859-1, so unexpected things might happen (of course that's independent of the actual transport). Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2016 11:55:13 UTC