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: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 09:46:11 +1000
Message-ID: <CAH_y2NHvWOHffHfo=a78k4c4633pxo3y+BoFpreaqFpwh95t3A@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-webapps@w3.org
On 27 July 2011 20:35, Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com> wrote:
> (a) it's not acceptable to make support (== request) of "good-compression"
> optional

I understand the desire to make good compression universal, but I'm
not sure that making it a required part of the specification is the
way to go.

> (b) it's not acceptable to allow any other compression/extension than
> specified in the API spec

So long as the selection of extensions is essentially transparent to
the application using the API, then the implementation should be free
to use extensions.   If a mux extension is developed that either
includes it's own compression or works better with some alternative
compression, then we don't want to stop browsers from adopting that
extension because it would mean that they are non compliant with the
API specification.

So isn't there a compromise, of coming up with words that express that
browsers SHOULD implement and some set of extensions, but allow
user-agents to use other extensions without being called non
compliant.


regards
Received on Wednesday, 27 July 2011 23:46:47 GMT

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