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

Re: [websockets] Making optional extensions mandatory in the API (was RE: Getting WebSockets API to Last Call)

From: Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 00:49:57 +0900
Message-ID: <CAH9hSJYERYkDv2hCr8jU-1DtU1mqLHD5Ad7gQtNQBj2sNfcGEA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, "Web Applications Working Group WG (public-webapps@w3.org)" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "ifette@google.com" <ifette@google.com>, "jonas@sicking.cc" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "simonp@opera.com" <simonp@opera.com>, Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 00:06, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 03:35:03 -0700, Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Is new XHR spec going to make gzip mandatory for its underlying HTTP?
>>
>
> I do not think that analogy makes sense. The WebSocket protocol can only be
> used through the WebSocket API, HTTP is prevalent in more places.


What do you mean by "more places"?


> Having said that, XMLHttpRequest does place constraints on HTTP. E.g. it
> requires redirects to be followed, it does not expose 1xx responses, only
> works cross-origin in combination with CORS, etc.


I agree that there're some constrains must be placed on underlying protocol
to make it useful/secure on browser.
Received on Wednesday, 27 July 2011 15:50:49 GMT

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