- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 10:30:51 -0700
- To: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>
- Cc: Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 19 March 2014 09:56, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org> wrote: > This is an unfortunate part of having perhaps too (current?) browser-centric > a view in some of our discussions. I don't think that it's that at all. I know that browsers and browser use cases dominate the discussion often, but I believe that this decision was made for another reason. The reason, as I understand it, relates to the ability of a client to act upon a response when it is received. If you push a response that is not expected and it's not cacheable, then - absent some sort of eventing API - it has to be discarded. This is more a symptom of wanting to minimize the delta for using applications, and a concern that we don't completely understand all the implications of a choice to allow non-cacheable responses. Once we have eventing APIs, then perhaps we can lift the restriction, but it's harder to remove functionality if we made a mistake.
Received on Wednesday, 19 March 2014 17:31:18 UTC