- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:17:55 -0800
- To: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
- Cc: Jesse Wilson <jesse@swank.ca>, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 25 February 2014 11:56, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com> wrote: > Well, at the HTTP level you can certainly make that assertion/requirement. My personal preference is to just require gzip support and document the known interoperability issues of deflate. This is a reasonable point. When you consider the possibility of adding a better, faster, stronger compression scheme under a new name, that makes the marginal advantages of deflate over gzip less attractive. Does anyone absolutely have to have deflate? Or will I take Jesse's PR?
Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2014 20:18:22 UTC