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

On 22 July 2011 03:16, Anne van Kesteren <> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 19:02:31 +0200, 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.
> 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


Received on Saturday, 23 July 2011 15:05:46 UTC