Hacker News Reader

Comment by jerf | Hacker News Reader

It is well known that Opera has done a lot of work in this area: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_Mini#Functionality

Of all the parties Google should listen to for SPDY feedback, Opera is probably the top of the list. It looks like Opera took it quite seriously and shared a lot of good work with us all, and I thank them for it. I'd say their point about the asynchronous headers is one that requires serious addressing ASAP. For one example, is it valid to push down a header redeclaring the encoding of the response at the very end? What would that even mean? It's a good point.

View on HN

There's a big difference between having a closed, proprietary protocol and releasing something as open source with a public spec.

I'm having a lot of trouble with people imputing argument to me I'm not making this week. My point is that this is a known thing that they have this experience, not that Opera Mini solves anything else, and that their experience is highly relevant.

Sorry for not being clear. I completely agree that Opera's experience is relevant and useful. They have done some great work on optimizing mobile web performance and it would be fantastic to draw on that expertise to make open standards which everyone can benefit from. However, don't forget that SPDY and related technologies create a problem for Opera, which is based on a closed protocol and ecosystem. Personally, I believe in an open web based on open technologies which can be implemented by anyone. Without releasing code or a spec, it's easy to take a position that your approach is better - since nobody can scrutinize you to prove otherwise.

Where do you see them claim their approach is better? Preferably with quotes.

It seems likely but I can't prove that behind a couple of statements like "As defined the feature is not powerful enough to push non-request related content (such as new RSS items)" is the fact that their approach does do it (and possibly had to add it on later only after they discovered it was a problem), but the document is very carefully written strictly as an examination of SPDY, with no braggadocio I can see at all or any trace of marketing beyond the initial statement of "Hey, we've done some stuff and here's some observations we are in a position to make".

(Again, my compliments to the chefs.)

If you really think we (i.e., Opera) have that much interest in closed ecosystems, you're wrong. Yes, Mini uses a closed protocol, but ultimately it's just another web browser. What data format we use to transfer the mostly-rendered page down to the client isn't of much interest. In reality, Mini teaches little relevant to SPDY (because what it sends over the wire is very specific whereas SPDY has to cope with arbitrary content).

But that doesn't mean that someone with experience implementing a proprietary protocol knows nothing and can't contribute to the discussion!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com