On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) <ifette@google.com>wrote:
> We are talking about it at IETF81 this week.
>
> That said, I think either way browsers should not require deflate-stream. I
> am hoping we can make forward progress on deflate-application-data (
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tyoshino-hybi-websocket-perframe-deflate-01).
> If we can get that through the process I could live with Chrome being
> required to support that. As for the protocol doc, the protocol lists
> deflate-stream as an example, not a requirement, so the mere fact that I
> don't want to support that particular extension isn't necessarily the
> strongest argument for taking it out of the protocol as the protocol doesn't
> require that it be supported. The API should not require the support of that
> particular extension either, as that extension is particularly bad.
>
Sounds like the consensus is to forbid this extension at the API layer,
then.
- James
> -Ian
>
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 11:04:09 -0700, Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> So, let me correct my text by s/XHR/HTML5 <http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/>/
>>> **.
>>>
>>
>> HTML5 is mostly transport-layer agnostic.
>>
>> I am not sure why we are going through this theoretical side-quest on
>> where we should state what browsers are required to implement from HTTP to
>> function. The HTTP protocol has its own set of problems and this is all
>> largely orthogonal to what we should do with the WebSocket protocol and API.
>>
>> If you do not think this particular extension makes sense raise it as a
>> last call issue with the WebSocket protocol and ask for the API to require
>> implementations to not support it. Lets not meta-argue about this.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Anne van Kesteren
>> http://annevankesteren.nl/
>>
>
>