- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 10:27:14 -0700
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, Alek Storm <alek.storm@gmail.com>, Jonathan Silvera <jsilvera@microsoft.com>, Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Matthew Cox <macox@microsoft.com>, Ivan Pashov <ivanpash@microsoft.com>, Osama Mazahir <OSAMAM@microsoft.com>, Rob Trace <Rob.Trace@microsoft.com>
On 8 June 2012 00:16, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > WRT SPDY and server push, I'd suggest keeping it in, but making sure it's separable, so that the decision can be delayed until you have more data. I don't know. Not to abuse the analogy, but I might like giant wooden horses and still have an aversion to having strange men inside my city walls. Or, from another angle, it's going to be hard enough to get the simple things right, why add more stuff. We're here to solve head-of-line blocking, not to create an standard analogue of the same. The idea that this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity is a fallacy. If you care about this feature, then make sure that no changes ruin the protocol such that push couldn't be added. The trade-offs involved with binary serialization/compression, multiplexing and the other properties are well enough understood to retain those. On the other hand, the unilateral delivery of unrequested content is not. --Martin
Received on Friday, 8 June 2012 17:27:43 UTC