hobohacker

7 ms·

31.
by hobohacker 14y ago
This comes up periodically on chromium-dev. I've answered it here: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/chromium-dev/... . In short, we don't want to support other consumers, sorry. Feel free to do code drops, they should work fi
32.
by hobohacker 14y ago
I think the source of the confusion is that you are conflating sharing of a [SPDY] connection with sharing of a resource identifier (a URI/URL). This is a misunderstanding. SPDY multiplexes multiple streams over a single connection (or more
33.
by hobohacker 14y ago
I believe Patrick already well explained why this the binary representation is useful, so I won't bother addressing that. I'd like to comment on your statement on the header compression dictionary. Firstly, your statement is only true for t
34.
by hobohacker 14y ago
I see, so your main point really is that you don't think the new features proposed in HTTP/2.0 are worth the change in wire representation. Prioritization: Generally speaking, documents (HTML) > script/stylesheets (JS&CSS) > sub
35.
by hobohacker 14y ago
While intriguing, this suggestion has a number of issues. For one, it implies coalescing a number of resources into a single resource named by a single URL. This means that all resources would have to share the same caching properties. Sinc
36.
by hobohacker 14y ago
It's unclear to me what advantages this proposal has over a HTTP/2.0 proposal using HTTP Upgrade. AFAICT, the client is unable to rely on HTTP/1.2 support in the first roundtrip. Therefore, it cannot begin utilizing the new proposed feature