Re: intermediaries, implicit gzip, etags, no-transform

On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 08:21:37 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>  
wrote:

>>
>> That depends on where you draw the line for the UA box. If you split the
>> browser into multiple processes, are they allowed to send different
>> representation of the data between each other? What if you move some
>> processes to different hosts?
>
> What's relevant is what gets out of the UA, which includes code using  
> XMLHttpRequest.
>

And we can know if the request is coming from XHR. We can also know if the  
resource is inspected, saved, etc. since it is our UA code. I say "can"  
here since what we do differs between iterations. We are not currently  
mirroring the javascript state on the server side, but we have the code.

>
> Finally, let's not forget  
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7234.html#rfc.section.5.5.6>:
>
> "5.5.6 Warning: 214 - "Transformation Applied"
>
> This Warning code MUST be added by a proxy if it applies any  
> transformation to the representation, such as changing the  
> content-coding, media-type, or modifying the representation data, unless  
> this Warning code already appears in the response."
>
> Another thing I haven't seen in the HTTP responses I saw in Chrome and  
> Opera.

That status code doesn't appear to be registered with IANA yet, oddly  
enough (I'm looking at  
http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes/http-status-codes.xhtml  
). The response code doesn't have any semantic value here though, since  
the UA already knows that the resource is transformed. It does however  
look like a low risk to add.

>
> Are users who opt in to use of Opera Turbo aware that this can break  
> existing protocol semantics?

I think they are aware that using software features can result in bugs.

/Martin Nilsson

-- 
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Received on Saturday, 21 June 2014 20:53:12 UTC