- From: Bryan McQuade <bmcquade@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:41:37 -0400
- To: David Murdoch <david@vervestudios.co>
- Cc: public-web-perf@w3.org
Isn't gzip just a wrapper around raw deflate? So using raw deflate
will save you a small fixed quantity of bytes (~25 bytes IIRC)?
I'm with you that if we were designing HTTP from scratch it would make
sense to pick raw deflate instead of gzip, but given that gzip is
widely supported and used, and switching is potentially risky and
saves only a handful of bytes per response, I'm not sure it's worth
changing at this point.
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:30 AM, David Murdoch <david@vervestudios.co> wrote:
> Sorry for the double post, the hyperlink in the first post was
> pointing to the dev version on my machine. The hyperlink has been
> corrected and now points to the production version of the test.
> ---
> Some very influential sources have been promoting the gzip compression
> format as the end-all and be-all to our HTTP 1.1 compression needs;
> some tout gzip as the superior compression format ("Gzip is the most
> [...] effective compression method..." [source: Best Practices for
> Speeding Up Your Website]). This, however, is not necessarily true.
> There are 2 other compression formats commonly available for use on
> the web.
>
> Research is currently being conducted at
> http://www.vervestudios.co/projects/compression-tests/results.
>
> Feedback and comments are encouraged.
>
>
Received on Thursday, 16 September 2010 16:42:29 UTC