MozillaZine

HTTP Compression (First Phase) Implemented in Mozilla!

Thursday September 17th, 1998

Mozilla.org has just gone up with news that Mozilla now has a limited form of HTTP compression! In this first phase of the implementation, the browser sends an "Accept-encoding: gzip" header to the server. If the correct Apache server module is installed, and the access.conf file in the requested document's directory has a line "CompressContent: yes", the server will look for any gzipped versions of the requested file in that directory. Whew!

But that's just the first step. Click here to read about what's to come!

#1 Re:HTTP Compression (First Phase) Implemented in M

by George Giannukos

Friday September 18th, 1998 7:55 AM

Sounds cool...For this to work does the server need to download some thing or will it just work with every Apche server or whatever?

And my next question is, will IE have this feature or will Netscape have it only?

#2 Re: HTTP Compression

by Wesley Felter

Friday September 18th, 1998 2:48 PM

MSIE 4.0 already has it, so will IIS 5.0.

Apache doesn't support compression-on-the-fly by default; you'll need to add a module for that (but I saw one that was written in Perl to do it...). I think the default version of Apache can be configured (using MultiViews) to send pre-compressed data when appropriate.

#3 Re:

by Wesley Felter

Friday September 18th, 1998 2:48 PM

MSIE 4.0 already has it, so will IIS 5.0.

Apache doesn\'t support compression-on-the-fly by default; you\'ll need to add a module for that (but I saw one that was written in Perl to do it...). I think the default version of Apache can be configured (using MultiViews) to send pre-compressed data when appropriate.

#4 Re:HTTP Compression (First Phase) Implemented in M

by Chris Nelson

Friday September 18th, 1998 3:51 PM

Hmm. Could anyone clear up what's going on with the multiple postings with one containing backslashed characters?

Are people posting twice, and doing this by hand, or no?

If not, I'll look into it and see if I can figure out what's going on.

--MozAdmin

#5 Re:HTTP Compression (First Phase) Implemented in M

by George Giannukos

Friday September 18th, 1998 9:50 PM

I think my question is....

Are web servers going to support this or will only like 5% of server support this HTML compression technology and i really shouldn't get excited about it??

#6 Re:HTTP Compression (First Phase) Implemented in M

by Aleks

Saturday September 19th, 1998 8:57 AM

I think the multiple posts come from the fact that when you first submit a post, the page isn't refreshed and it doesn't look like your message got posted at all. So people press the Submit button again and we get double posts.

#7 Re:HTTP Compression (First Phase) Implemented in M

by Chris Nelson

Saturday September 19th, 1998 1:33 PM

OK, the talkback should be fixed. You should see your submission on the page immediately after you submit, and you should also see notification on the page that your submission was successful.

--MozAdmin

#8 Re:HTTP Compression (First Phase) Implemented in M

by ok__computer

Tuesday September 29th, 1998 2:05 PM

i think we lost track of the origional thread there with the "multiple posts" issue... but am i correct in understanding that http compression != html compression (although that would be pretty neat in the case of some of the over nested-table sites..) and the fact that it's (at least so far on this site) reported to only work along with apache is interesting. somehow i can't imagine m$ "pioneering" (lmao) a technology that would only run on a server that isn't even remotely native to NT. so i'm assuming that the html compression is being used in conjunction with that..(excuse the syntax it's bad...i'm a web guy, not a network guy :) so in a way, netscape is essentially using the same stupid tactics m$ does then, (duck) but just with m$ competitors (allbeit makers of better (and free)products..) i'm probably not reading this correctly, but if i am, this is kind of annoying. it's like a smurfs episode when poppa smurf explains that "we'd be no better than gargamel if we threw him in the vat of lava..." apache's AWESOME; but um...choice? remember choice?