Re: [websockets] Making optional extensions mandatory in the API (was RE: Getting WebSockets API to Last Call)


I understand this point of view. That said, there is a lot of disagreement
in the IETF WG about deflate-stream. The extension basically breaks all
other extensions, framing, etc. It's a bit of a mess and a lot of us want to
just yank it out entirely. There was a much better proposal by yoshino-san
(deflate-frame) that basically did compression but still properly framed the
compressed result. I think that at least in Chrome we are hoping
deflate-frame will take off. That will be in a separate document though as
the current protocol doc is in last call, and you are undoubtedly familiar
with the logistical considerations of such things.


On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Ian Hickson <> wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Adrian Bateman wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> Optional features in HTTP have caused no end of trouble and are amongst
> the many reasons I avoid optional features so much.
> --
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
>       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Thursday, 21 July 2011 20:18:06 UTC