On 2005.02.28, Michael Matthews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > While I agree with your point, I have to say that compression (or, at > least, the concept of efficiency) will always matter. Network > bandwidth, even when it becomes obscenely fast right to the home, is > something that should always be considered. Once you take it for > granted, you'll find ways to overwhelm it. It still has to flow through > the network(s) the servers reside on, for example, and there's a cost > associated with those pipes that's typically hidden to developers.
Server-side compression is perfume to cover up the stink of a poor content representation format (HTML/XML). Of course, considering how well-established this poor format has become, solving the real problem correctly will likely never happen. Suggesting that "compression is the right solution" makes me wonder why people aren't pressuring manufacturers of network-edge hardware (i.e., Cisco) to design and implement transparent inter-router compression standards to minimize the required bandwidth between peers. It's a silly suggestion, and IMHO, just as silly as the application-level compression thing. The pressure should be applied to content producers to ensure that their images are optimized and cropped, that the HTML is clean and as much of it is client-side cacheable, etc. Browsers and servers should support things like If-Match: and If-Modified-Since: the ultimate compression is to not transmit the data more than once, reducing payload to zero bytes. -- Dossy -- Dossy Shiobara mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Panoptic Computer Network web: http://www.panoptic.com/ "He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on." (p. 70) -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with the body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
