- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 10:21:21 +0200
- To: Dmitry Turin <html60@narod.ru>
- CC: public-html@w3.org
Dmitry, I think this proposal about things that are not covered by the WG charter (<http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html>). At all. You may want to consider the WEBAPI WG, but I'm not sure. Best regards, Julian Dmitry Turin wrote: > Julian, maybe we prolong discussion !? > > > >>>> If document has this META > >>>> <head> > >>>> <meta name=register content=785> > >>>> </head> > >>>> let browser send to the following to server > >>>> <formdata> > >>>> <meta name=register content=785> > >>>> </formdata> > >>>> at once after loading document. > > JR>> Do you have a concrete proposal how to do that over HTTP? > > DT> We have __no requirement of compatibility__, > > DT> so why it should be necessarily > > DT> (1) 80-th port on browser side for 'messages of server by its initiative' ? > > DT> (2.1) exactly HTTP ? > > DT> (for example, i'd like to prefer XML instead of HTTP. > > DT> Besides my taste, this has consequences, going far: > > DT> if we accept XML for backward messages, > > DT> then there is hope, > > DT> that we shall be able to replace HTTP by XML for forward messages > > DT> - for messages, which we use now). > > DT> (2.2) current HTTP without extension ? > > > > DT> P.S. > > DT> Apparently browser's window should send indentified of itself > > DT> with <meta name=register content=785>. > > > > > > Dmitry Turin > > HTML6 (6.4.0) http://html60.chat.ru > > SQL4 (4.2.0) http://sql40.chat.ru > > Unicode2 (2.0.1) http://unicode2.chat.ru > > Computer2 (2.0.3) http://computer20.chat.ru >
Received on Monday, 27 August 2007 08:21:36 UTC