- From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 17:05:42 -0400
- To: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.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 Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com> wrote: > First, I don't think that's the same thing at all. Why not? > 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. I'm saying that it would be perfectly acceptable for a feature to be optional on the protocol level (what the IETF specifies) but mandatory for web browsers (what WebApps specifies). If HTML5 were to require that conforming user-agents must support HTTP compression, for the sake of argument, that would not contradict the RFCs that make it optional. An HTTP client that didn't support compression would be a conforming HTTP client but a non-conforming HTML5 user agent. There's nothing wrong with that: specifications are supposed to add requirements beyond the specs they normatively reference. Thus this is a question for us, not the IETF. >From the discussion here, it sounds like there are problems with WebSockets compression as currently defined. If that's the case, it might be better for the IETF to just drop it from the protocol for now and leave it for a future version, but that's up to them. As far as we're concerned, if the option is really a bad idea to start with, it might make sense for us to prohibit it rather than require it, but there's no reason at all we have to leave it optional for web browsers just because it's optional for other WebSockets implementations.
Received on Monday, 25 July 2011 21:06:29 UTC