IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: The use of binary data in any part of HTTP 2.0 is not good

Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> Sun, 20 January 2013 23:16 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E52CF21F880B for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 15:16:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E3hSppNb-qoa for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 15:16:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E60321F8809 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 15:16:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Tx46U-0000bP-67 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 23:15:06 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 23:15:06 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Tx46U-0000bP-67@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1Tx46L-00063t-K6 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 23:14:57 +0000
Received: from ip-58-28-153-233.static-xdsl.xnet.co.nz ([58.28.153.233] helo=treenet.co.nz) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1Tx46K-0000EG-PO for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 23:14:57 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.109] (unknown [14.1.64.4]) by treenet.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8741CE7059 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 12:14:29 +1300 (NZDT)
Message-ID: <50FC7A52.8030901@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 12:14:26 +1300
From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <CAAZO4q4vEiYhH5FaX2XCxXox9jkf4dLTy8coQZiE+CYHA-QzBg@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYhkVBRAyY1O32aOiWB8=46SBidFOjKH+e7PGbB7mKzmiQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA4WUYhkVBRAyY1O32aOiWB8=46SBidFOjKH+e7PGbB7mKzmiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=58.28.153.233; envelope-from=squid3@treenet.co.nz; helo=treenet.co.nz
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.499, BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1Tx46K-0000EG-PO e439967eff96faa10d8fe36eca37e0fa
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: The use of binary data in any part of HTTP 2.0 is not good
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/50FC7A52.8030901@treenet.co.nz>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16050
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 21/01/2013 11:36 a.m., William Chan (陈智昌) wrote:
> There are many advantages to using binary data. If you would like a
> textual representation of a protocol, I advise using a utility to
> generate one for you.

Perhapse one of the "developer tools" utilities, which *already* 
altering the actual ASCII bytes transmitted into other ASCII bytes with 
more whitespace, wrapping, and information markup for human display?

Amos

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email