Re: [PATCH] mod_deflate extensions

[Henri Gomez]

William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> At 02:42 AM 11/11/2002, Henri Gomez wrote:
>
>>Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>>
>>>--On Friday, November 8, 2002 5:52 PM +0100 Henri Gomez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Some questions about mod_deflate :
>>>>
>>>>1) Why this module is not enabled by default built ?
>>>> compression should be on to meet HTTP recommandations ?
>>>
>>>No, that's not part of the HTTP specification per se.
>>
>>I didn't agree, they are covered in rfc2616 :
>>
>>http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.11
>
>
> What Justin TRIED to say is that rfc2616 neither recommends nor requires
> gzip compression. It simply defines the transmission of transfer-encoding
> and content-encoding headers and defines the gzip method amoungst
> others.

Agreed

> Justin disagreed (and I concur) that there is no such thing as meeting
> some "HTTP recommandations" from RFC 2616, since the RFC makes
> no such recommendation.

OK

> However, I agree with you that we should make it trivial for the admin
> to enable this module.

When you drop the network bandwith by 30 to 70% factor, you make your IT
managers happy since they save money and you make end-users very happy
since they feel you application is faster.

So adding mod_deflate to the default distribution, under control of
configure which will verify if zlib is available on the system to enable
it, shouldn't hurt.

More users will use mod_deflate, more chance to see remaining bugs
discovered and fixed.

Regards