- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 10:33:53 +0200
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Matthew Wilcox <mail at matthewwilcox.com> wrote: > Ahhh, ok. I was not aware that SPDY is intended to suffer from the flaws > inflicted by the dated mechanics of HTTP. Is it really different semantics > though? I don't see how it's harmful to enable resource adaption over SPDY > just because browser vendors have decided that HTTP is too expensive to do > it? ... > I'm sensing the SPDY/HTTP identical-semantics standpoint may be a > philosophical thing rather than technical? Is it a philosophical or technical thing to suggest that it would be a bad idea for a server to send different style rules depending on whether the HTTP client requests /style.css with Accept-Encoding: gzip or not? SPDY is an autonegotiated by design invisible to the next layer upgrade to how HTTP requests and reponses are compressed and mapped to TCP streams. Of course it would be *possible* to tie other side effects to this negotiation, but it doesn't mean it's sound design or a good idea. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen at iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2012 00:33:53 UTC