Re: CBOR Tutorial

If you are storing full requests and responses then surely individual entries can be compressed using gzip encoding much in the same way that most normal requests are compressed? 

If we have the full range of normal HTTP headers available then I’d be very surprised if, on average, a web package had any entry that wasn’t gzipped individually.

That’s the magic of having HTTP available in a package format: you can just use HTTP to solve these issues.

AFAICT there isn’t anything in any of the drafts so far that bans the Accept-Encoding/Content-Encoding headers. 

Of course, I may be missing something. I haven’t given the new drafts a thorough read.

- best
- Baldur Bjarnason
  baldur@rebus.foundation



> On 31 Jan 2018, at 08:23, Garth Conboy <garth@google.com> wrote:
> 
> + Jeffrey
> 
> The last couple of responses on this thread touch on compression of the the contents of a Web Package -- compressed internally or in transit by HTTP (or both).  If Web Package were to be used for PWP, when transported over a non-compressing protocol/media (e.g., USB drive) would the whole thing want to be gzip-ed?
> 
> Best,
>    Garth
> 
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 1:15 AM, Romain <rdeltour@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 31 Jan 2018, at 02:49, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Because of the ubiquity of compressed/gzipped HTTP responses and how the package stores responses, many text entries in a package will be stored compressed as binaries and not text.
>>> 
>> That's the key piece here for Web Packages vs PWP...Web Packages are expected (in the vast majority of use cases) to be delivered over an HTTP connection, which is itself compressed.  Also, there isn't concern about storing these on devices or quota-based storage.  However, for PWP, we expect that delivery may take place via other means, will certainly be stored by a user somewhere with limited storage (a device, a cloud storage system, etc.)
> 
> Leonard,
> 
> When you’re saying "delivery", what do you exactly mean?
> 
> There are two different things at play:
> 
> 1. delivery of the *package* itself. In my understanding of the bundling spec, the delivery of the bundle has no impact how a UA would process the bundle, since this latter is a cohesive, self-contained description of HTTP exchanges. Whether the bundle itself is transferred over HTTP, email, on a USB stick, etc, doesn’t impact the description of its inner HTTP exchanges and has no bearing on how its content would be loaded.
> 
> 2. about the *individual resources* in the package. In the bundling spec they’re described as HTTP exchanges, so there can’t really be any other delivery mean?
> 
> Of course, the loading mechanism has yet to be defined. That would be the 3d layer (currently unspec'ed) in the proposed web packaging specs:
>   https://github.com/WICG/webpackage
> 
> Or are you talking in general about using another bundling format in the PWP case?
> 
> Romain.
>

Received on Wednesday, 31 January 2018 14:37:59 UTC