W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > February 2008

Re: Extra Connection Support Proposal

From: Kris Zyp <kzyp@sitepen.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:48:47 -0700
Message-ID: <0c7f01c87992$ea9b1fc0$4200a8c0@kris>
To: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "Kris Zyp" <kris@sitepen.com>
Cc: "Stewart Brodie" <stewart.brodie@antplc.com>, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "Web API WG \(public\)" <public-webapi@w3.org>

> Doing this on an HTTP level seems like the right solution to me. Though 
> i'm not sure what working group would then be appropriate for 
> standardizing it...
I don't mind trying this avenue, I just fear that this is even more likely 
to be a dead-end. HTTP is already very complicated (it would seem more so 
than XHR to me) and is much more solidified and it seems unlikely that there 
would a be solution down that path. And I don't see how it is any more 
"right" for this to be done in HTTP, The user agent needs to be informed by 
something, and I don't see a clear distinction in why it is superior to be 
informed by the HTTP response rather than API/author since this doesn't 
really affect the actual HTTP communication protocol, but when a user agent 
chooses to use an (additional) HTTP communication channel. I am concerned 
that if all parties continually come up with really good reasons to keep 
deferring this to someone else, the user with hanging requests still lose.
I am going to send out another proposal that will hopefully be more 
palatable/feasible.
Thanks,
Kris 
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2008 22:50:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 February 2008 22:50:18 GMT