- From: Michael Carter <cartermichael@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:09:05 -0700
> > The protocol should not require any data (not even hello - it should > function as an ordinary TCPConnection similar to implementations in > java, c# or any other major programming language. If not, it should be > called something else - as it is not a TCP connection. > > > > I agree completely. Just providing async HTTP is a weak use case compared > to allowing client-side access to millions of existing (opted-in) services > and gadgets. > > Shannon > > It's clear that we need some kind of opt-in strategy or all web viewers will become spam bots in short order. While I think it will be extremely useful to have a raw tcp connection in the browser, and indeed you could use an external service like dns to handle connection authorization, I think that it will be much more difficult to drive adoption to that kind of standard. In the meantime, we need to make the protocol enforce the opt-in. In that case I agree that the name shouldn't be TCPConnection. I propose SocketConnection instead. -Michael Carter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20080618/a2f3505c/attachment.htm>
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2008 12:09:05 UTC