[whatwg] Content encoding (e.g. compression) in Web Sockets
douglips at gmail.com
Tue Mar 2 17:22:15 PST 2010
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
> 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. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg