W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: [websockets] Getting WebSockets API to Last Call

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 20:15:20 +0000 (UTC)
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
cc: "Web Applications Working Group WG (public-webapps@w3.org)" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1107112014100.23910@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >>
> >> Can you list the reasons for why you don't think we will not need any 
> >> of the types listed in the following email: 
> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/0732.html
> >
> > I addressed those in the e-mail you replied to earlier:
> >
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JulSep/0237.html
> 
> This doesn't contain any arguments for why we wouldn't add any of the 
> suggested properties in the future. It just gives solutions for what to 
> do if we do need to add them. However all the suggested solutions create 
> a more complex platform than if we simply make the second argument an 
> object now.

We wouldn't add timeout to the constructor because there's no benefit to 
putting that on the constructor.

We wouldn't put priority on the constructor because that would be a 
per-message feature.

We wouldn't put encryption in the constructor because that's handled by 
TLS already.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 11 July 2011 20:15:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:46 GMT