On Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Ian Fette (ã~B¤ã~B¢ã~C³ã~C~Uã~B§ã~C~Cã~C~Fã~B£) wrote: > > 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. I've been assuming that the Web Socket protocol spec was what UAs wanted to implement. If it's not, then that's a bigger problem. I don't mind if we turn specific extensions on or off. I just don't think it should be optional. If UAs do not want to implement what the protocol spec says, I'm equally happy for the API spec to just disallow that extension. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 21 July 2011 21:23:37 UTC