W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: Options for CONTINUATION-related issues

From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 10:36:42 +1000
Message-ID: <CAH_y2NGwwmNLfFGHBhU6KtFgjVg+1c1Yndz7bF-R-=iR4_S=Jg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nicholas Hurley <hurley@todesschaf.org>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 18 July 2014 04:01, Nicholas Hurley <hurley@todesschaf.org> wrote:

> The arguments keep seem to be boiling down to "I don't like CONTINUATION,
> so let's find some reason to get rid of it".



Nicholas,

You are under no obligation to support any proposal, but please do not
denigrate the motives of those who are making them in good faith.

The proposals to remove continuations are motivated by genuine concerns
that they will harm the future of the web.   Effort has been made to listen
to all the issues that continuations were designed to address and the
proposals have been prepared to those multiple requirements in mind.

I understand it is tedious to go over this again and again, but I genuinely
believe that the apparent willingness of the WG to remove the refset from
HPACK has removed one of the key drivers for the continuation design, and
thus it is worthwhile to discuss alternatives at this point.

If the consensus comes out that the WG would prefer to keep continuations
(and I suspect Mark is about to call it that way), then fine.  But please
don't suggest that those contributing to the process are doing so for
anything but good in good faith.









-- 
Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales
http://www.webtide.com  advice and support for jetty and cometd.
Received on Friday, 18 July 2014 00:37:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:09 UTC