- From: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 17:02:31 +0000
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, "Web Applications Working Group WG (public-webapps@w3.org)" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "ifette@google.com" <ifette@google.com>, "jonas@sicking.cc" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "simonp@opera.com" <simonp@opera.com>, Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>, Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
On Thursday, July 21, 2011 8:31 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 17:26:21 +0200, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com> > wrote: > > What do others (Anne?, Maciej?, ...) think about this issue? > > I don't know enough about the WebSocket protocol, but optional web > platform features suck. They will become mandatory following the typical > "dominant implementation does it and we want to work on the same sites" > scenario. For platform features that directly affect web developers' pages that might sometimes be true. However, compression is also optional in HTTP and it doesn't appear to have caused problems or made some sites work and others not based on some dominant implementation. There is still discussion in the IETF about whether stream or frame based compression is best. That's the right place to have that discussion. There are also implementers that want extensions for other things, such as multiplexing. This is a protocol layer handshake below the API and the API simply provides information about what was agreed. Adrian.
Received on Thursday, 21 July 2011 17:03:01 UTC