- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:54:28 +0000
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- CC: Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> > Same thing goes for the other samples. In neither of these cases are there any > additional "GET" request defined by the WebSockets communication -- the HTTP > upgrade request indeed semantically signifies the interaction with the resource. > Once you have established the WebSocket you obviously no longer are bound > to a request/response interaction pattern and so can evolve into any message > exchange pattern desired but then you clearly are beyond HTTP semantics. > > Well, no, we are still bound by the semantics of HTTP. We are not bound by the > interaction limitations of HTTP, its specific syntax, or even the nature of its > messages. That's what you mean above, and I agree. Yes, I meant on subsequent interactions beyond the first one. > Certainly, if the WebSockets server is using the request target to initiate a > response to that HTTP request, then the mechanism of that response doesn't > matter. > What matters is that the client doesn't need to repeat its request inside the > WebSockets protocol after the connection is established. So, if that is true of the > WebSockets handshake, then it is indeed using Upgrade correctly. Yup, no need to reinvent GET :) Henrik
Received on Tuesday, 19 July 2011 14:55:08 UTC