- From: Doug Simpkinson <douglips@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 17:22:15 -0800
If the headers are optional, is there a reason they can't be added to the spec in version 1? It's OK if the first implementations ignore it, but it seems that some implementations have a faster release cycle than IETF protocol spec updates, so the upside to having it in the spec sooner is huge. If I can help, for example by providing a patch to the spec, I'd be glad to. On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Doug Simpkinson wrote: >> >> The current Web Socket wire protocol does not make allowances for >> compression. > > Yeah, this is a known issue. We're still trying to nail down the exact > handshake and basics of the framing, but compression will almost certainly > be one of the first features we add in version 2. I expect we'll add a new > header that the client sends to indicate it supports compression, and if > the server responds with the same header, the frames will be compressed > instead of being raw data. > > -- > Ian Hickson ? ? ? ? ? ? ? U+1047E ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?)\._.,--....,'``. ? ?fL > http://ln.hixie.ch/ ? ? ? U+263A ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?/, ? _.. \ ? _\ ?;`._ ,. > Things that are impossible just take longer. ? `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' >
Received on Tuesday, 2 March 2010 17:22:15 UTC