Or we just kill push for the horrible thing it is
-
-
Naw; what's horrible is all this custom crap we have to carry around for WebSockets.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Is the crap around WebSockets, or is it WebSockets itself?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I think the latter. The idea that we need a totally separate protocol when H/2 does nearly all of this just boggles my mind.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @mnot and
Maybe framing all pushed data as a `Response` _is_ a terrible idea! IDK. WS just feels like damage.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Ignoring the WS problem. The servers unilateral ability to send stuff the client is bad. But can we do WS equivalent on H2 without push?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I'm not seeing the principled reason for your objection to the capability.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Because the user pays for data received and not asked for
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
that's already the case: server sends response with arbitrary data and subresource cascades.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
The user agent requests the sub resources
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
this is a totally abstract notion. If we assume that the server has control of the content which then (predictably) generates requests....
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate @crucially and
I mean, *I* support a mode where Chrome asks you before downloading any resource larger than, say, 500KB, but that's sort of different
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
With push that can’t exist
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 7 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
& Web Standards TL; Blink API OWNER
Named PWAs w/
DMs open. Tweets my own; press@google.com for official comms.