Re: Cache control in trailers?

On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 10:24:06AM +0100, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> > Of course I would appreciate it if my browser asked me "this transfer
> > was interrupted, it may be a bug on the site, a network condition error
> > or an anti-malware detecting dangerous content, what do you want to do,
> > try again, try to continue, abort, keep it truncated ?" and that would
> > be done.
> 
> If that happened in N% of your sessions and that other browser wouldn't
> annoy the user as much, users might find that as reason to just go to the
> other instead...

Sure and this has been used as an argument against user notifications
for quite a while, but it's more of a matter of having the few remaining
players agree on a strategy here. After all, they all managed to make it
really painful to access sites behind expired certificates. After all, we
now all suffer from the annoyingly stpuid GDPR banners on every site which
announces that it will set a cookie to remember our refusal of cookies, is
way more annoying than an occasional browser pop-up, and we're all forced
to live with that.

> > One of the problems with the state of the web today *is* that we try to
> > focus too much on user experience and avoid as much as possible to mention
> > possible breakage.
> 
> I'm with you a 100% on this, but that doesn't actually help much.
> 
> I claim the reason "we" are this sensitive is because how the browser
> economy works. Users equals money to browsers so if you scare off your users
> to make them go use another browser that doesn't show the scary warning or
> is more okay with "broken" sites, the browser vendor lose money. They rather
> keep the users and instead compromise on protocol strictness (or at least
> hide some of the issues).

Yes, I can understand this point, which is also where standards definition
can help get all of them on the same boat for very specific stuff, without
the fear of losing users.

Cheers,
Willy

Received on Wednesday, 10 February 2021 09:35:01 UTC