On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Patrick McManus <mcma...@ducksong.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Anne van Kesteren <ann...@annevk.nl> > wrote: >> Why would they be allowed to use OE? > > The reasons why any individual resource has to be http:// and may (or may > not) be able to run OE vary by resource. Of course only the content provider > can know their reason for sure. I've tried to point out in this thread what > some of those reasons can be and its really not very relevant whether you or > I agree with them unless we own the content.
Well you brought up the nosslsearch example, presumably in defense of OE. To me it seems then reasonable to ask if they could use OE in such a scenario. > They are doing this with opportunistic encryption (via the > Alternate-Protocol response header) for http:// over QUIC from chrome. In > the past they did this with spdy too (I'm unsure of current status of that). > They don't want the open and standards track web to participate. It seems we > can't be trusted to do what they're already proprietarily doing for their > own services. Google is unwilling to standardize QUIC? Or are you saying that because Google experiments with OE in QUIC, including in services today through Chrome, it is weird for them to oppose OE in HTTP? -- https://annevankesteren.nl/ _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
