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.

Reply via email to