Gordon Mohr wrote:
> That suggests to me that either (1) it's so transparent it's easy
> to miss; or (2) it doesn't save enough in bandwidth costs to be
> worth the trouble.
It's generally completely transparent and pretty effective. In our tests
we've seen typical compression ratios of 6:1 on typical HTML content.
Last time I checked something over 90% of browsers hitting our sites
were able to handle GZIP compressed content, and those that can't
> If (2), Curl's business case is really in trouble, because if
> people can't be convinced to use free off-the-shelf compression
> to save on bandwidth, why would they spend for a whole new
> active-content system to save on bandwidth?
It's seems like a pretty mad business model anyway.
-- Andy Armstrong, Tagish
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:14:15 PDT