- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:01:45 -0700
- To: mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>
- CC: public-webapps@w3.org
mike amundsen wrote: > Jonas: > > <snip> >> Your proposal with the flag seems like it's reverting to the "having to >> know" case, since you'd want to set the flag if and only if the server >> supports compression to avoid extra overheads, while still taking advantage >> of compression when the server supports it. > </snip> > > Well, seems I've muddled things a bit by mixing concerns of > cross-domain, compression support, and security in an overly simple > suggestion. > > My intention was to allow clients to decide if they want to *attempt* > compression, not *force* it. Thus, it could be exposed as an flag in > the component in an effort to cut down on extra traffic between client > and server. If the flag is set to "false", don't try query the server > to see if it supports compression. This is on the assumption that a > client must execute an OPTIONS call in order to discover if the server > supports compression on uploads. This model would make the whole > conversation transparent to the application developer, but not the > component developer. What does "client", "component" and "application" mean in the above paragraph? / Jonas
Received on Friday, 12 September 2008 03:03:47 UTC