W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: Discussion topic for Webapps F2F on Nov 1

From: Bryan Sullivan <blsaws@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 04:52:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CAA2gsfq1+yvFS=DsCqy+f4yABxhYmbYBLheajvf60N+A2o1U6A@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-webapps@w3.org, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
As further input on this proposed discussion, please see the
unofficial draft of the "EventSource API Connectionless Push
Extension" at http://bkaj.net/w3c/eventsource-push.html.

Hopefully webapps will have at least 30 minutes open in the schedule
for Tuesday so I can introduce this API draft proposal, and we can
discuss the other alternatives noted below.

Comments are welcome.

Bryan Sullivan

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:40 AM, Bryan Sullivan <blsaws@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Art and Chaals,
>
> If possible (depending upon the Webapps agenda fullness) I would like
> to propose a 30-60 minute discussion on followup work we have been
> pursuing on extending Server-Sent Events for support of Connectionless
> Push, as noted in the current SSE draft (the section
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/#eventsource-push, which resulted
> from the last discussion we had on this in Webapps in the 2009 TPAC).
> If there is time for this (at least 30 minutes) I can send info in
> advance tomorrow, which will describe some approaches we have been
> considering, including:
> - adding support for additional URI schemes for eventsource, to
> indicate additional bearers ("sources") for eventsource events
> - processing of events from connectionless Push bearers (SMS, OMA
> Push/SMS, and OMA Push in general) using the text/event-stream
> processing model
> - alternatively, using device-local eventsource server addresses as a
> way to seamlessly extend eventsource for these additional bearers,
> without impacting the browser
> - any other ideas that Webapps members might have on how this can be
> achieved with as much consistency with eventsource as possible (even
> complete transparency, if possible)
>
> This would be in essence a kickoff discussion of this in Webapps, if
> the group overall thinks any of the ideas are well-formed enough to
> pursue in some spec form.Otherwise the feedback would be useful
> anyway, to help improve the API extension concepts and prototypes we
> have been developing for submission to Webapps at the right time.
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Bryan Sullivan
>



-- 
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
Received on Tuesday, 1 November 2011 11:52:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:48 GMT