Re: Static Table Entries

["Kulkarni, Saurabh" <[e-mail]>]

Martin,

Since now we have switched the static table to the lower indices, we
should try to see if we can populate the entries if possible with their
most-popular values. For e.g. Œcontent-encoding: gzip¹ is better than
Œcontent-encoding: <empty>¹. Having an empty value made sense when we
always added entries to header table before, but now it just seems like we
are missing an opportunity to further get some compression thru populating
all the headers.

- Saurabh

On 8/7/14, 1:26 PM, "Martin Thomson" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>On 7 August 2014 13:11, Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management)
><[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Looking at the current entries, I believe it would be useful to add at
>> least the following:
>> - :method PUT
>> - :method DELETE
>> - :method HEAD
>> - :status 201
>
>The values we have there are based on a frequency analysis provided by
>Akamai.  The methods and status codes that we have account for some
>ridiculously large proportion of requests.  And note that every entry
>makes the header table larger, which increases the number of bytes
>needed to reference the header table.
>
>> And perhaps:
>> - :method
>> - :path (even this would save ~4 bytes IIUC, vs. the first occurrence)
>> - :status
>
>Bare values aren't necessary.  You can reference an entry with a value
>and provide a different value.
>
>> I find it odd that common content types are not in the static table
>
>See above.  There just isn't enough commonality in these header fields
>to justify adding the extra entries.  We just don't have enough good
>data.  And getting good data is only a small part of the problem;
>we're basically done here, so changes like this require overpowering
>justification.
>