- From: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 21:39:08 -0700
- To: Martin Nilsson <nilsson@opera.com>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CABaLYCshbR6OZPSaDe_GQ=fSRxM3soBrP+1MZsHv4XjH7zQ=Hg@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Martin Nilsson <nilsson@opera.com> wrote: > On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:19:36 +0200, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com> wrote: > > Making it a client decision kills the feature entirely. We >> need to either support push or not support it. But seriously, who are >> these clients which will reject the pushes? You can't push random data. >> You can only push in-domain data. If the browser doesn't need it, you >> only hurt yourself. Seriously, why would any browser block the push? >> >> > I'll disagree with you from two different directions... > > First of all I think it would be useful if a client could set up a > subscription on a resource or a set of resources. I guess you could > associate the resources with the subscription request, but the duration > would be different than from a normal request (e.g. for the duration of the > connection). This is obviously outside of the scope of HTTP semantics, but > it would be nice if the infrastructure was in place on a binary level (e.g. > current SPDY/3 can be twisted to support it). > I agree this could be useful :-) But this isn't what SPDY's push does right now, and that is what I was commenting on. > Secondly, if I disable javascript and images, override CSS and turn on > on-demand-plugins there are very few relevant resources the server can push > (frame documents and favicons). The issue is for the server to determine > what types of resources are relevant for the client. If the purpose is to > limit bandwidth (which is likely if e.g. images are turned off), rejecting > the incoming pushed content is pointless, as most resources are less than > 64K and thus fully on the wire already, with default SPDY initial window. > Some sort of actually working Accept-header system could be one way to go. Fair enough, you've presented an argument for who doesn't want push. But this is a tiny tiny fraction of people. I would not sacrifice billions of internet users that do want images and JS for the needs of a very small few. The very small few won't be broken by using push - they'll still get their pages just fine and can RST the streams they don't want. I think we should build "fast by default". mike > > > /Martin Nilsson > > -- > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ > >
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2012 04:39:37 UTC