W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2014

Re: Draft for note to send to Push API editors/authors

From: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 05:08:38 -0800
Message-ID: <CANr5HFXipLzg0wP8NQcxfd67F0tBFbL6SXwTQe7vD_T9Uc5MAg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Cc: Konstantinov Sergey <twirl@yandex-team.ru>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 3:46 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
> wrote:
> > I admit the bit where they hand a URL in is a bit of a fudge. I noted
> > somewhere (can't' recall where) that they should have a generic (string?
> > JSON?) payload and let apps do as they will (modulo size limits for the
> > payload). But with that problem of generality solved, the overall thing
> > becomes transport agnostic, and I should point out, with respect to the
> > underlying message delivery system, started that way.
> >
> > This is a non-issue WRT their current draft, IMO.
>
> I agree with Tim that punting on what protocol is going to be
> implemented across actors would be unacceptable. Whether we define
> them in the same draft or via reference is a technicality not worth
> worrying about, but there has to be a baselines that is guaranteed to
> work.
>

This feels fanciful, at best.

There are existing underlying transports. They are (or can be) specified
elsewhere. They are also interchangeable under this API. We must not
prevent this API from accommodating current reality (thereby robbing it of
purpose), nor can we expect everyone to sign up to a new transport for no
reason other than that we asked them to.

Lets get concrete: is it acceptable to the folks clamoring for a specified
transport if one is specified elsewhere?
Received on Tuesday, 7 January 2014 13:09:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:23 UTC