Ian, I understand this point of view. That said, there is a lot of disagreement in the IETF WG about deflate-stream. The extension basically breaks all other extensions, framing, etc. It's a bit of a mess and a lot of us want to just yank it out entirely. There was a much better proposal by yoshino-san (deflate-frame) that basically did compression but still properly framed the compressed result. I think that at least in Chrome we are hoping deflate-frame will take off. That will be in a separate document though as the current protocol doc is in last call, and you are undoubtedly familiar with the logistical considerations of such things. -Ian On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Adrian Bateman wrote: > > > > For platform features that directly affect web developers' pages that > > might sometimes be true. However, compression is also optional in HTTP > > and it doesn't appear to have caused problems or made some sites work > > and others not based on some dominant implementation. > > Optional features in HTTP have caused no end of trouble and are amongst > the many reasons I avoid optional features so much. > > -- > Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL > http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. > Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' > >
Received on Thursday, 21 July 2011 20:18:06 UTC