Re: TPE Document, S2.3 P1

Agree.

I just want to clarify: to the degree possible, we should write language in
a way that accommodates future variations of 'web browsing'.  For example,
proxied browsing ala Silk and/or mobile apps.

-a


On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Tom Lowenthal <tom@mozilla.com> wrote:

> Agreed. If SPDY becomes a community standard, DNT HTTP/SPDY optimization
> can be considered. Until then, let's work with community standards.
>
> On 10/31/2011 12:11 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > On Oct 31, 2011, at 11:40 AM, Ashkan Soltani wrote:
> >
> >> +1
> >>
> >> Should we also discuss upcoming protocols like SPDY?
> http://www.chromium.org/spdy
> >
> > SPDY just tunnels HTTP header fields with compression, so there is no
> concern
> > about support.  They might want to implement something more efficient,
> just as
> > I would in waka, but that is not our concern.   And, no, I won't
> reference
> > SPDY until it is submitted to a legitimate standards forum.
> >
> > ....Roy
>
>