6 ms·

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 t

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.
  - eridius 9y ago
    > 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 had to go out of your way to break support for these browsers. Literally every HTTP package (including Rocket) out of the box handles uncompressed responses. You had to modify it to add always-on Brotli encoding. > I do not support non-SSL HTTP connections. Why do you keep repeating this? That's completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Nothing about this discussion has anything to do with whether or not the HTTP protocol is wrapped in SSL. > Naturally. I would prefer to not have anyone using these tools on my server. So, you want a web site that completely breaks HTTP such that only works with a handful of browsers and doesn't work with the probably tens or hundreds of thousands of pieces of other software that speaks HTTP. Why?
    - mmstick 9y ago
      > You had to go out of your way to break support for these browsers. Literally every HTTP package (including Rocket) out of the box handles uncompressed files. You had to modify it to add always-on Brotli encoding. I did not have to go out of my way to 'break support for these browsers'. All I did was replace the gzip-compression code in my page cacher with brotli-compression code. In other words, I went from always-on Gzip encoding to always-on Brotli encoding! I have never supported serving uncompressed files! The web browsers I care about (Firefox, Chrome) support Brotli, and that's all I care about! There is no purposeful breaking of web browsers. That's just persecution complex talk. > Why do you keep repeating this? That's completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Nothing about this discussion has anything to do with whether or not the HTTP protocol is wrapped in SSL. You're the one that keeps bringing up that the only difference between HTTP and HTTPS is that HTTPS is HTTPS with SSL. I am merely responding to your comment that your comment about them doesn't matter! What does matter is that my website only supports the HTTPS protocol, not HTTP. The web server only listens on port 443 with TLS enabled. > So, you want a web site that completely breaks HTTP such that only works with a handful of browsers and doesn't work with the probably tens or hundreds of thousands of pieces of other software that speaks HTTP. This is nothing more than pure trolling. All major web browsers support Brotli over HTTPS. Apple's WebKit is the only man out, and they are, at best, a minority on the web. Firefox supports it, Chrome supports it, and Edge supports it. Even if Edge didn't support it, the fact that Firefox and Chrome support it is more than enough for me. Other browsers are just bonuses. Furthermore, yet again, I do not have a HTTP server, so there is no HTTP here to break! HTTPS is implemented to spec, HSTS headers and all! My website is meant to be viewed by people, not machines. In addition, as the web is moving to being HTTPS-exclusive, it's about time that you start getting used to it. You're wasting your time.
jacquesm 9y ago
I'll bet if your food depended on that 40% you'd fix it in a heartbeat.
- mmstick 9y ago
  I highly doubt that anyone depends upon a personal blog for food.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    So there's your answer: you really don't care. I also don't depend on my blog for food. But I do care and if this were a customer project or something commercial you'd be dead in the water. That's a friendly way of saying that your opinion on what is 'standard' really doesn't count for much with me. You've polluted this thread with I don't know how many comments essentially shouting down each and every patient and restrained effort to teach you something but you won't take a hint.
    - mmstick 9y ago
      Maybe you can explain to me why I am supposed to cater to other's whims as if my personal blog was a commercial project. It's not. Nobody is trying to teach me things here. They are simply demanding that I do what I have already clearly expressed that I am not going to do. This is my personal blog, not yours. I get to set the rules, not you. Perhaps you can take a hint and not demand others to do things for you even after they've expressed that they don't want to? If anyone is polluting the thread, it's your kind. Snarky, combative, argumentative, and ignorant. If you want to be an asshole, you'll get what you ask for from me.
nercury 9y ago
> I do not support HTTP! You are, in fact, right. But I advise you to read about HTTPS here, so you can more clearly understand the points others are making: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTPS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTPS.

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.
- eridius 9y ago
  > 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 had to go out of your way to break support for these browsers. Literally every HTTP package (including Rocket) out of the box handles uncompressed responses. You had to modify it to add always-on Brotli encoding. > I do not support non-SSL HTTP connections. Why do you keep repeating this? That's completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Nothing about this discussion has anything to do with whether or not the HTTP protocol is wrapped in SSL. > Naturally. I would prefer to not have anyone using these tools on my server. So, you want a web site that completely breaks HTTP such that only works with a handful of browsers and doesn't work with the probably tens or hundreds of thousands of pieces of other software that speaks HTTP. Why?
  - mmstick 9y ago
    > You had to go out of your way to break support for these browsers. Literally every HTTP package (including Rocket) out of the box handles uncompressed files. You had to modify it to add always-on Brotli encoding. I did not have to go out of my way to 'break support for these browsers'. All I did was replace the gzip-compression code in my page cacher with brotli-compression code. In other words, I went from always-on Gzip encoding to always-on Brotli encoding! I have never supported serving uncompressed files! The web browsers I care about (Firefox, Chrome) support Brotli, and that's all I care about! There is no purposeful breaking of web browsers. That's just persecution complex talk. > Why do you keep repeating this? That's completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Nothing about this discussion has anything to do with whether or not the HTTP protocol is wrapped in SSL. You're the one that keeps bringing up that the only difference between HTTP and HTTPS is that HTTPS is HTTPS with SSL. I am merely responding to your comment that your comment about them doesn't matter! What does matter is that my website only supports the HTTPS protocol, not HTTP. The web server only listens on port 443 with TLS enabled. > So, you want a web site that completely breaks HTTP such that only works with a handful of browsers and doesn't work with the probably tens or hundreds of thousands of pieces of other software that speaks HTTP. This is nothing more than pure trolling. All major web browsers support Brotli over HTTPS. Apple's WebKit is the only man out, and they are, at best, a minority on the web. Firefox supports it, Chrome supports it, and Edge supports it. Even if Edge didn't support it, the fact that Firefox and Chrome support it is more than enough for me. Other browsers are just bonuses. Furthermore, yet again, I do not have a HTTP server, so there is no HTTP here to break! HTTPS is implemented to spec, HSTS headers and all! My website is meant to be viewed by people, not machines. In addition, as the web is moving to being HTTPS-exclusive, it's about time that you start getting used to it. You're wasting your time.

jacquesm 9y ago

I'll bet if your food depended on that 40% you'd fix it in a heartbeat.

mmstick 9y ago
I highly doubt that anyone depends upon a personal blog for food.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  So there's your answer: you really don't care. I also don't depend on my blog for food. But I do care and if this were a customer project or something commercial you'd be dead in the water. That's a friendly way of saying that your opinion on what is 'standard' really doesn't count for much with me. You've polluted this thread with I don't know how many comments essentially shouting down each and every patient and restrained effort to teach you something but you won't take a hint.
  - mmstick 9y ago
    Maybe you can explain to me why I am supposed to cater to other's whims as if my personal blog was a commercial project. It's not. Nobody is trying to teach me things here. They are simply demanding that I do what I have already clearly expressed that I am not going to do. This is my personal blog, not yours. I get to set the rules, not you. Perhaps you can take a hint and not demand others to do things for you even after they've expressed that they don't want to? If anyone is polluting the thread, it's your kind. Snarky, combative, argumentative, and ignorant. If you want to be an asshole, you'll get what you ask for from me.

nercury 9y ago

> I do not support HTTP! You are, in fact, right. But I advise you to read about HTTPS here, so you can more clearly understand the points others are making: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTPS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTPS.