Re: [websockets] Making optional extensions mandatory in the API (was RE: Getting WebSockets API to Last Call)
On 27 July 2011 20:35, Takeshi Yoshino wrote: > (a) it's not acceptable to make support (== request) of "good-compression" > optional I understand the desire to make good compression universal, but I'm not sure that making it a required part of the specification is the way to go. > (b) it's not acceptable to allow any other compression/extension than > specified in the API spec So long as the selection of extensions is essentially transparent to the application using the API, then the implementation should be free to use extensions. If a mux extension is developed that either includes it's own compression or works better with some alternative compression, then we don't want to stop browsers from adopting that extension because it would mean that they are non compliant with the API specification. So isn't there a compromise, of coming up with words that express that browsers SHOULD implement and some set of extensions, but allow user-agents to use other extensions without being called non compliant. regards
Re: [websockets] Making optional extensions mandatory in the API (was RE: Getting WebSockets API to Last Call)
On 22 July 2011 03:16, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 19:02:31 +0200, Adrian Bateman > wrote: >> >> For platform features that directly affect web developers' pages that >> might sometimes be true. However, compression is also optional in HTTP and >> it >> doesn't appear to have caused problems or made some sites work and others >> not based on some dominant implementation. > > Actually it has. You are pretty required to support it these days and you > better be sure you Accept-Encoding header is formatted consistently. What is the evidence of that? Gzip encoding is optional in most java servlet containers, as it is implemented by a Filter that the application must configure.I've never heard of an application not working with a client because it did not have compression configured. Note that I'm a bit confused by what is intended by mandatory in this context. Is it intended that it be mandatory that browsers only accept connections with deflate-stream, or is it only mandatory that they request that extension, but can accept connections without compression? regards
