Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] Compression Dictionary Transport: Align on a single Content-Encoding for the web? (Issue #969)

Is this the wrong way to ask the TAG to weigh-in or is it a matter of the TAG not having an interest in specifying content encodings for the web use case?

The specific question for the TAG is if they think the content-encodings available to dictionary compression should be curated (i.e. just Brotli) or if the clients and origins should be able to use whatever they want (and agree to in negotiation).

At the HTTP level when it makes it to RFC there will be no restrictions but there is an argument that has been made that site owners and web clients would benefit if, at least initially, the available encodings were artificially limited (kind of like Brotli was by virtue of browsers. Otherwise all clients will need to implement all of the encodings that Chrome implements as sites will deploy a variety of encodings (or sites will need to implement multiple if browsers don't ship an overlapping set).

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/969#issuecomment-2177210967
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/969/2177210967@github.com>