- From: David Murdoch <david@vervestudios.co>
- Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 14:06:36 -0400
- To: Bryan McQuade <bmcquade@google.com>
- Cc: public-web-perf@w3.org
I've read that proxies may have some trouble with compressed content (don't they always) but haven't seen any real data. I have no idea how to even begin testing for proxies, nor do I get enough web-traffic at the moment to get an accurate snapshot of the proxy landscape anyway. Any ideas? David Murdoch | Verve Studios, Co ph: (407) 374-3003 | fx: (407) 696-3078 | e: david@vervestudios.co | web: http://vervestudios.co On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 12:53 PM, David Murdoch <david@vervestudios.co> wrote: > Yes, it is a wrapper around raw deflate. But that wrapper has a > checksum that has to be calculated which also takes time on the > server. If developers are taking time to optimize their CSS selector > chains they will probably take time for an optimization such as using > raw deflate over gzip. > > Personally, I don't think it is risky to switch. But that is what the > compression test is trying to figure out. So far, RAW deflate IS > supported in all browsers and platforms tested when "deflate" is > present in the Content-Encoding request header. > > Do you have any data on RAW deflate failing? > > David Murdoch | Verve Studios, Co > ph: (407) 374-3003 | fx: (407) 696-3078 | e: david@vervestudios.co | > web: http://vervestudios.co > > > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Bryan McQuade <bmcquade@google.com> wrote: >> 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 18:07:40 UTC