Actually, if you look at the top level comments that I've made, that's exactly what I said. What I'm getting in response to that is that I'm basically 'breaking the web' because I don't want to comply with sniffing request headers and offering gzip to Apple WebKit users. If I don't care about supporting your web browser, then I don't care about supporting your web browser. You can't make me.
> Also, it should be noted that there is a valid reason to eschew compression for HTTPS on the client side, and that's security. Compression of HTTPS channels opens up the possibility for a few more forms of attack on the encrypted data.
That kind of security isn't a concern to me. Not having compression at all would take a larger toll on my bandwidth, and increase latency of page delivery. Bandwidth isn't free.
I think you're mistaken "de-facto standard" for "standard". They are not the same thing, and whether brotli actually is a de-facto standard is debatable, but it's not the standard.
It's perfectly acceptable to do whatever you want with your own web stack and application. You wouldn't be getting much pushback if you simply justified it as "It's what I want to do", but you are providing evidence that is factually incorrect, where no evidence is really required.
Also, it should be noted that there is a valid reason to eschew compression for HTTPS on the client side, and that's security. Compression of HTTPS channels opens up the possibility for a few more forms of attack on the encrypted data.