Thanks to you all! If the improvement is so small I will unplug the filter. Although the browsers do support compression (the filter is checking this), the outcome seems to be somewhat unpredictable, and I don't know anything about the client side in production, of course.
sonja Am Montag, den 19.09.2005, 21:48 +0200 schrieb J.Pietschmann: > Sonja Löhr wrote: > > With IE (that is, acrobat inside) I get sometimes the pdf and sometimes a > > blank page, after reloading the message about a "damaged file". Firefox > > (always) complains that the file "doesn't begin with %PDF-" (ok, indeed both > > speak German ;-) > > The browser explicitly asks if it will accept a compressed > response. The server is *not* allowed to use compression (at the > HTTP level) if the browser doesn't ask for it. Check your browser > configuration. In Firefox, you might try the HTTP live headers > extension for sniffing the actual values. > > Also, most of the PDF parts are already compressed (and re-encoded > as ASCII85). A secondary compression will probably gain something > between 15% and 20% for typical PDF files. Significant improvements > are only to be expected in case of large embedded BMP images and in > some cases if there are large embedded fonts. > > J.Pietschmann > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Sonja Löhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
