- From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 10:23:55 +1000
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: "Web Applications Working Group WG (public-webapps@w3.org)" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, 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>
On 22 July 2011 03:16, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 19:02:31 +0200, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com> > 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. > > Actually it has. You are pretty required to support it these days and you > better be sure you Accept-Encoding header is formatted consistently. What is the evidence of that? Gzip encoding is optional in most java servlet containers, as it is implemented by a Filter that the application must configure. I've never heard of an application not working with a client because it did not have compression configured. Note that I'm a bit confused by what is intended by mandatory in this context. Is it intended that it be mandatory that browsers only accept connections with deflate-stream, or is it only mandatory that they request that extension, but can accept connections without compression? regards
Received on Saturday, 23 July 2011 15:05:46 UTC