<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Google Chrome: One thing we do know&#8230; (HTTP Pipelining)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://newestindustry.org/2008/09/02/google-chrome-one-thing-we-do-know-http-pipelining/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://newestindustry.org/2008/09/02/google-chrome-one-thing-we-do-know-http-pipelining/</link>
	<description>Evolving the Online Performance Experience</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 00:47:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex</title>
		<link>http://newestindustry.org/2008/09/02/google-chrome-one-thing-we-do-know-http-pipelining/#comment-1048</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Alex]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 23:08:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newestindustry.org/?p=1896#comment-1048</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Pipelining only works when the remote server supports it, if the remote server fails to pipeline then your page will actually load much slower.&quot;Why would this be?  I&#039;ve never seen it be &quot;much slower&quot;, nor can I think of any reason this would be the case.&quot;This is the case with IIS 4 and 5 which are common enough to cause concern. Also it turns out that some mods to Apache don&#039;t pipeline properly, resulting in garbled output.&quot;That&#039;s the real reason nobody uses it: at best, it&#039;s much faster, but at worst, it fails horribly.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Pipelining only works when the remote server supports it, if the remote server fails to pipeline then your page will actually load much slower.&#8221;Why would this be?  I&#039;ve never seen it be &#8220;much slower&#8221;, nor can I think of any reason this would be the case.&#8221;This is the case with IIS 4 and 5 which are common enough to cause concern. Also it turns out that some mods to Apache don&#039;t pipeline properly, resulting in garbled output.&#8221;That&#039;s the real reason nobody uses it: at best, it&#039;s much faster, but at worst, it fails horribly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: roy554</title>
		<link>http://newestindustry.org/2008/09/02/google-chrome-one-thing-we-do-know-http-pipelining/#comment-1047</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[roy554]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 01:50:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newestindustry.org/?p=1896#comment-1047</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Great post, Thanks,You can test pipeline using  this &lt;a href=&quot;http://soft-net.net/SendHTTPTool.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;free HTTP pipeline tool &lt;/a&gt; and test the response return from the web when sending different HTTP Get or post with pipeline:&lt;a href=&quot;http://soft-net.net/SendHTTPTool.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://soft-net.net/SendHTTPTool.aspx&lt;/a&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great post, Thanks,You can test pipeline using  this <a href="http://soft-net.net/SendHTTPTool.aspx" rel="nofollow">free HTTP pipeline tool </a> and test the response return from the web when sending different HTTP Get or post with pipeline:<a href="http://soft-net.net/SendHTTPTool.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://soft-net.net/SendHTTPTool.aspx</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zauber Exonar</title>
		<link>http://newestindustry.org/2008/09/02/google-chrome-one-thing-we-do-know-http-pipelining/#comment-1046</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Zauber Exonar]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 09:09:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newestindustry.org/?p=1896#comment-1046</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[IIS 4 and 5 not supporting pipelining is no reason for it to be pulled from the RFC.  Bear in mind: IIS is microsoft technology.  And microsoft has a history of ignoring, twisting, or abusing standards.  Especially when it benefits them.  See J++ for a good example of the twisting/abusing concept.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>IIS 4 and 5 not supporting pipelining is no reason for it to be pulled from the RFC.  Bear in mind: IIS is microsoft technology.  And microsoft has a history of ignoring, twisting, or abusing standards.  Especially when it benefits them.  See J++ for a good example of the twisting/abusing concept.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen Pierzchala</title>
		<link>http://newestindustry.org/2008/09/02/google-chrome-one-thing-we-do-know-http-pipelining/#comment-1045</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Stephen Pierzchala]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 09:29:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newestindustry.org/?p=1896#comment-1045</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Cool. Now, if it&#039;s not supported by anyone, it should get pulled from the RFC. And now that the browser engines are almost all abstracted from the browser that wraps around them, maybe it&#039;s time to look at what works to make browsers and content delivery faster.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cool. Now, if it&#039;s not supported by anyone, it should get pulled from the RFC. And now that the browser engines are almost all abstracted from the browser that wraps around them, maybe it&#039;s time to look at what works to make browsers and content delivery faster.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Pauley</title>
		<link>http://newestindustry.org/2008/09/02/google-chrome-one-thing-we-do-know-http-pipelining/#comment-1044</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark Pauley]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 05:52:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newestindustry.org/?p=1896#comment-1044</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You&#039;re wrong.  Chrome could pipeline, nothing in Webkit prevents this. Chrome doesn&#039;t use the CFNetwork loader nor does WebKit marry the browser to any given network / HTTP stack, just look at the code.  The reason Chrome doesn&#039;t support pipelining is likely to be the same reason that no other browser pipelines out of the box: pipelining is broken.  Pipelining only works when the remote server supports it, if the remote server fails to pipeline then your page will actually load much slower.  This is the case with IIS 4 and 5 which are common enough to cause concern. Also it turns out that some mods to Apache don&#039;t pipeline properly, resulting in garbled output.  The ultimate solution will be a compromise as is seen with the fledgling &#039;support&#039; for pipelining in Firefox&#039;s HTTP stack which is off by default.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#039;re wrong.  Chrome could pipeline, nothing in Webkit prevents this. Chrome doesn&#039;t use the CFNetwork loader nor does WebKit marry the browser to any given network / HTTP stack, just look at the code.  The reason Chrome doesn&#039;t support pipelining is likely to be the same reason that no other browser pipelines out of the box: pipelining is broken.  Pipelining only works when the remote server supports it, if the remote server fails to pipeline then your page will actually load much slower.  This is the case with IIS 4 and 5 which are common enough to cause concern. Also it turns out that some mods to Apache don&#039;t pipeline properly, resulting in garbled output.  The ultimate solution will be a compromise as is seen with the fledgling &#039;support&#039; for pipelining in Firefox&#039;s HTTP stack which is off by default.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen Pierzchala</title>
		<link>http://newestindustry.org/2008/09/02/google-chrome-one-thing-we-do-know-http-pipelining/#comment-1043</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Stephen Pierzchala]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 03:29:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newestindustry.org/?p=1896#comment-1043</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Cool. Now, if it&#039;s not supported by anyone, it should get pulled from the RFC. And now that the browser engines are almost all abstracted from the browser that wraps around them, maybe it&#039;s time to look at what works to make browsers and content delivery faster.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cool. Now, if it&#039;s not supported by anyone, it should get pulled from the RFC. And now that the browser engines are almost all abstracted from the browser that wraps around them, maybe it&#039;s time to look at what works to make browsers and content delivery faster.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Pauley</title>
		<link>http://newestindustry.org/2008/09/02/google-chrome-one-thing-we-do-know-http-pipelining/#comment-1042</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark Pauley]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:52:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newestindustry.org/?p=1896#comment-1042</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You&#039;re wrong.  Chrome could pipeline, nothing in Webkit prevents this. Chrome doesn&#039;t use the CFNetwork loader nor does WebKit marry the browser to any given network / HTTP stack, just look at the code.  The reason Chrome doesn&#039;t support pipelining is likely to be the same reason that no other browser pipelines out of the box: pipelining is broken.  Pipelining only works when the remote server supports it, if the remote server fails to pipeline then your page will actually load much slower.  This is the case with IIS 4 and 5 which are common enough to cause concern. Also it turns out that some mods to Apache don&#039;t pipeline properly, resulting in garbled output.  The ultimate solution will be a compromise as is seen with the fledgling &#039;support&#039; for pipelining in Firefox&#039;s HTTP stack which is off by default.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#039;re wrong.  Chrome could pipeline, nothing in Webkit prevents this. Chrome doesn&#039;t use the CFNetwork loader nor does WebKit marry the browser to any given network / HTTP stack, just look at the code.  The reason Chrome doesn&#039;t support pipelining is likely to be the same reason that no other browser pipelines out of the box: pipelining is broken.  Pipelining only works when the remote server supports it, if the remote server fails to pipeline then your page will actually load much slower.  This is the case with IIS 4 and 5 which are common enough to cause concern. Also it turns out that some mods to Apache don&#039;t pipeline properly, resulting in garbled output.  The ultimate solution will be a compromise as is seen with the fledgling &#039;support&#039; for pipelining in Firefox&#039;s HTTP stack which is off by default.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

