4 ms·

I see it as more of an Apple problem. Everyone else's web browser works fine, but Apple's doesn't. The main reason why companies like Apple still don't support

I see it as more of an Apple problem. Everyone else's web browser works fine, but Apple's doesn't. The main reason why companies like Apple still don't support Brotli even though the competition has supported it for more than a year now is because too many sites are focused on carrying legacy support for unsupported platforms like Safari. If more sites dropped support for legacy software, Apple would be forced to implement Brotli support and then everyone could benefit.

gue5t 9y ago
GNOME's, Xfce's, suckless', and many other web browsers are based on Webkit (WebKit2GTK+ or other ports) as well, and as far as I know none of them yet support brotli. wget and curl both also fail to decompress your site's contents. Same problem in netsurf, lynx, and links.
- mmstick 9y ago
  This is because I don't have a HTTP website! The website is HTTPS-exclusive. If your tool does not support HTTPS, it will certainly not work on my website. > wget and curl both also fail to decompress your site's contents. I'd consider this a good thing, actually.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - thristian 9y ago
    All the tools mentioned in the comment you're responding to support HTTPS just fine.
eridius 9y ago
Have you filed a bug report asking Apple to support Brotli (https://bugreport.apple.com https://bugreport.apple.com)? And it's not just Safari. I think it's safe to say the overwhelming majority of software that issues HTTP requests does not support Brotli. And you're also not following the HTTP spec. Safari sends the Accept-Encoding header with a value of "gzip, deflate". If you're unwilling to support either of those, and unwilling to return an uncompressed response, then you SHOULD return a 406 (Not Acceptable) instead of just blindly returning Brotli-encoded data to a client that doesn't understand it.
- mmstick 9y ago
  I don't use Apple products, nor am I user of Safari. It's not in my interest to request for Brotli support in products that I do not use. > I think it's safe to say the overwhelming majority of software that issues HTTP requests does not support Brotli. And you're also not following the HTTP spec. Again, I do not support HTTP! The website is HTTPS-exclusive. HTTP is basically a legacy protocol at this point. Every website should be encrypted. > If you're unwilling to support either of those, and unwilling to return an uncompressed response, then you SHOULD return a 406 (Not Acceptable) instead of just blindly returning Brotli-encoded data to a client that doesn't understand it. I may do just that then.
  - eridius 9y ago
    > It's not in my interest to request for Brotli support in products that I do not use. You've already positioned yourself as trying to take a principled stand against software that doesn't support Brotli in the hopes of convincing the software authors to add support for Brotli. Now you're saying you don't care whether software you don't use supports Brotli. These two positions contradict each other, and if you really don't care about software you don't use, then why are you so dead set against serving up uncompressed content to that software? > Again, I do not support HTTP! You completely missed the point. I know your site doesn't support HTTP. But HTTPS is generally understood to be part of the umbrella of "HTTP". It is in fact literally the same protocol (well, for HTTP/1.1; HTTP/2 is a brand new protocol and irrelevant for this discussion), just wrapped in SSL. > I may do just that then. Just so we're clear, your site currently does not work, and will continue to not work, with tools like `curl` or `wget`, or nearly all other non-browser tools people have written.
    - mmstick 9y ago
      > You've already positioned yourself as trying to take a principled stand against software that doesn't support Brotli in the hopes of convincing the software authors to add support for Brotli. Now you're saying you don't care whether software you don't use supports Brotli. These two positions contradict each other, and if you really don't care about software you don't use, then why are you so dead set against serving up uncompressed content to that software? I'm not sure where you think the contradiction is. That I do not support web browsers that don't support Brotli should already tell you that I don't care if they support Brotli or not! If there is no support, there is no support! Doesn't effect me. > You completely missed the point. I know your site doesn't support HTTP. But HTTPS is generally understood to be part of the umbrella of "HTTP". It is in fact literally the same protocol (well, for HTTP/1.1; HTTP/2 is a brand new protocol and irrelevant for this discussion), just wrapped in SSL. Basically completely irrelevant to what's being discussed here. I do not support non-SSL HTTP connections. That is all! > Just so we're clear, your site currently does not work, and will continue to not work, with tools like `curl` or `wget`, or nearly all other non-browser tools people have written. Naturally. I would prefer to not have anyone using these tools on my server.
flukus 9y ago
> even though the competition has supported it for more than a year now is because too many sites are focused on carrying legacy support for unsupported platforms like Safari. That says it all really. Unfortunately it also seems to be a common attitude in the rust community. Something doesn't become legacy just because a newer option has been available for a year.
- steveklabnik 9y ago
  > Unfortunately it also seems to be a common attitude in the rust community. Eh, maybe in some segments, but I don't think that's the majority culture. See https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1985 https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1985 for something extremely relevant to the discussion here, heh.

gue5t 9y ago

GNOME's, Xfce's, suckless', and many other web browsers are based on Webkit (WebKit2GTK+ or other ports) as well, and as far as I know none of them yet support brotli. wget and curl both also fail to decompress your site's contents. Same problem in netsurf, lynx, and links.

mmstick 9y ago
This is because I don't have a HTTP website! The website is HTTPS-exclusive. If your tool does not support HTTPS, it will certainly not work on my website. > wget and curl both also fail to decompress your site's contents. I'd consider this a good thing, actually.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- thristian 9y ago
  All the tools mentioned in the comment you're responding to support HTTPS just fine.

eridius 9y ago

Have you filed a bug report asking Apple to support Brotli (https://bugreport.apple.com https://bugreport.apple.com)? And it's not just Safari. I think it's safe to say the overwhelming majority of software that issues HTTP requests does not support Brotli. And you're also not following the HTTP spec. Safari sends the Accept-Encoding header with a value of "gzip, deflate". If you're unwilling to support either of those, and unwilling to return an uncompressed response, then you SHOULD return a 406 (Not Acceptable) instead of just blindly returning Brotli-encoded data to a client that doesn't understand it.

mmstick 9y ago
I don't use Apple products, nor am I user of Safari. It's not in my interest to request for Brotli support in products that I do not use. > I think it's safe to say the overwhelming majority of software that issues HTTP requests does not support Brotli. And you're also not following the HTTP spec. Again, I do not support HTTP! The website is HTTPS-exclusive. HTTP is basically a legacy protocol at this point. Every website should be encrypted. > If you're unwilling to support either of those, and unwilling to return an uncompressed response, then you SHOULD return a 406 (Not Acceptable) instead of just blindly returning Brotli-encoded data to a client that doesn't understand it. I may do just that then.
- eridius 9y ago
  > It's not in my interest to request for Brotli support in products that I do not use. You've already positioned yourself as trying to take a principled stand against software that doesn't support Brotli in the hopes of convincing the software authors to add support for Brotli. Now you're saying you don't care whether software you don't use supports Brotli. These two positions contradict each other, and if you really don't care about software you don't use, then why are you so dead set against serving up uncompressed content to that software? > Again, I do not support HTTP! You completely missed the point. I know your site doesn't support HTTP. But HTTPS is generally understood to be part of the umbrella of "HTTP". It is in fact literally the same protocol (well, for HTTP/1.1; HTTP/2 is a brand new protocol and irrelevant for this discussion), just wrapped in SSL. > I may do just that then. Just so we're clear, your site currently does not work, and will continue to not work, with tools like `curl` or `wget`, or nearly all other non-browser tools people have written.
  - mmstick 9y ago
    > You've already positioned yourself as trying to take a principled stand against software that doesn't support Brotli in the hopes of convincing the software authors to add support for Brotli. Now you're saying you don't care whether software you don't use supports Brotli. These two positions contradict each other, and if you really don't care about software you don't use, then why are you so dead set against serving up uncompressed content to that software? I'm not sure where you think the contradiction is. That I do not support web browsers that don't support Brotli should already tell you that I don't care if they support Brotli or not! If there is no support, there is no support! Doesn't effect me. > You completely missed the point. I know your site doesn't support HTTP. But HTTPS is generally understood to be part of the umbrella of "HTTP". It is in fact literally the same protocol (well, for HTTP/1.1; HTTP/2 is a brand new protocol and irrelevant for this discussion), just wrapped in SSL. Basically completely irrelevant to what's being discussed here. I do not support non-SSL HTTP connections. That is all! > Just so we're clear, your site currently does not work, and will continue to not work, with tools like `curl` or `wget`, or nearly all other non-browser tools people have written. Naturally. I would prefer to not have anyone using these tools on my server.

flukus 9y ago

> even though the competition has supported it for more than a year now is because too many sites are focused on carrying legacy support for unsupported platforms like Safari. That says it all really. Unfortunately it also seems to be a common attitude in the rust community. Something doesn't become legacy just because a newer option has been available for a year.

steveklabnik 9y ago
> Unfortunately it also seems to be a common attitude in the rust community. Eh, maybe in some segments, but I don't think that's the majority culture. See https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1985 https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1985 for something extremely relevant to the discussion here, heh.