- From: Walter H. <Walter.H@mathemainzel.info>
- Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2017 11:13:09 +0200
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <59858C25.7050803@mathemainzel.info>
On 05.08.2017 05:34, Amos Jeffries wrote: > >> and a fallback MUST be provided, in other words a server MUST do >> either both the JS-API and the header proposal or only the JS-API, >> because it can't be, that for a legit use case you have to buy a new >> "smartphone", because the server only does header proposal ... > > There are other fallbacks; No, a mobile using it now, can't it use any more when the server changes from JS-API to header proposal, because of this "optimization", that we needn't talk about, if we would take it serious ... > > Your arguments followed logically with different factual statements think of the difference between a mobiles and non mobiles ... > leads one to the conclusion that there is a use-case for it. No, not any, because any use case already has been covered by JS-API ..., and nobody told any new legit use case where the JS-API doesn't work ... and by the way a serious use case is limited to mobiles; for NON MOBILEs there is not any use case ...
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Saturday, 5 August 2017 09:13:35 UTC