On 27 July 2011 20:35, Takeshi Yoshino <tyosh...@google.com> 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
