- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 21:53:50 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
- cc: "Web Applications Working Group WG (public-webapps@w3.org)" <public-webapps@w3.org>, "ifette@google.com" <ifette@google.com>, "jonas@sicking.cc" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "simonp@opera.com" <simonp@opera.com>, "art.barstow@nokia.com" <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Adrian Bateman wrote: > > > > I strongly disagree. We must have interoperability amongst browser > > user agents. Having some support compression and others not would lead > > to authoring mistakes and will force us into either having or not > > having compression based on how big sites first get this wrong. > > It's fine to disagree, but you should disagree in the IETF working group > where this is made optional and not in the Web API. There will be other > users of WebSockets outside the browser and by implementing the protocol > they won't be required to implement this extension. Non-browser clients don't have the same dynamics, so it makes sense for them to be allowed to not implement compression. Non-browser clients aren't going to have the market impact of browser clients. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 8 July 2011 21:54:22 UTC