W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: [websockets] Making optional extensions mandatory in the API (was RE: Getting WebSockets API to Last Call)

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 21:53:50 +0000 (UTC)
To: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
cc: "Web Applications Working Group WG (public-webapps@w3.org)" <public-webapps@w3.org>, "ifette@google.com" <ifette@google.com>, "jonas@sicking.cc" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "simonp@opera.com" <simonp@opera.com>, "art.barstow@nokia.com" <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1107082151480.20871@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Adrian Bateman wrote:
> > 
> > I strongly disagree. We must have interoperability amongst browser 
> > user agents. Having some support compression and others not would lead 
> > to authoring mistakes and will force us into either having or not 
> > having compression based on how big sites first get this wrong.
> 
> It's fine to disagree, but you should disagree in the IETF working group 
> where this is made optional and not in the Web API. There will be other 
> users of WebSockets outside the browser and by implementing the protocol 
> they won't be required to implement this extension.

Non-browser clients don't have the same dynamics, so it makes sense for 
them to be allowed to not implement compression. Non-browser clients 
aren't going to have the market impact of browser clients.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 8 July 2011 21:54:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:46 GMT