- From: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 20:58:17 +0000
- To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, "Web Applications Working Group WG (public-webapps@w3.org)" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.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>, "Greg Wilkins" <gregw@intalio.com>
On Monday, July 25, 2011 1:32 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 1:02 PM, 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. > > Do you think it would be feasible in practice for a mainstream web > browser to not support HTTP compression? For instance, if Internet > Explorer removed support for it, would you expect to get a sufficient > number of bug reports that you'd be forced to re-add support? If so, > then HTTP compression is in practice mandatory for web browsers, but > optional for web servers. This is exactly the state of affairs > proposed for WebSockets compression. First, I don't think that's the same thing at all. Second, the IETF HyBi working group has asked members of this working group for Last Call feedback. If you think the protocol has the wrong mix of required/optional features then you should provide that feedback through the requested channel. Adrian.
Received on Monday, 25 July 2011 20:58:58 UTC