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

On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 07:03:34 +0200, Takeshi Yoshino <>  
> Think of these facts, the only "dominant implementation" concern I can  
> come up with for WebSocket compression is that big service provides may  
> take an aggressive policy that they require users to use only WebSocket  
> client with compression capability to reduce bandwidth. As a result  
> clients with no
> compression capability may, in effect, be kicked out of WebSocket world.
> I can understand that concern. Is this true for the HTTP world? I.e.  
> clients that send "Accept-Encoding: \r\n" cannot live?

Yes. Optional features for browsers do not work. For servers it is fine if  
they do not support compression or whatnot, but browsers pretty much need  
to align on feature set.

Anne van Kesteren

Received on Friday, 22 July 2011 09:55:35 UTC