- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:13:39 +0200
- To: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "Web Applications Working Group WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 00:47:51 +0200, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > It makes no sense to me to for HTTP say that the total number of bytes > should include HTTP headers. It would be similar to including the TCP > headers in the IP packets IMHO. > > However, ideally the spec should be protocol agnostic. But it might be a > good idea to mention how HTTP (and possibly FTP) should be handled since > that's likely the vastly most common case. Yeah, I'd very much prefer the Progress Events specification to handle this so that not all other specifications using the Progress Events specification need to do so. I agree that a protocol agnostic design would be good, but that indeed doesn't preclude saying what should happen in the HTTP case. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2008 09:13:38 UTC