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: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:32:23 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKA+AxkfR8xm3oU9_T0jbyMKXzSz4dM5jk_aN3yjMZnGVTyD=A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, "Web Applications Working Group WG (public-webapps@w3.org)" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "ifette@google.com" <ifette@google.com>, "jonas@sicking.cc" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "simonp@opera.com" <simonp@opera.com>, Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>, Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com> 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.

Do you think it would be feasible in practice for a mainstream web
browser to not support HTTP compression?  For instance, if Internet
Explorer removed support for it, would you expect to get a sufficient
number of bug reports that you'd be forced to re-add support?  If so,
then HTTP compression is in practice mandatory for web browsers, but
optional for web servers.  This is exactly the state of affairs
proposed for WebSockets compression.
Received on Monday, 25 July 2011 20:33:09 GMT

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