Re: WebSocket over HTTP2 RFC6455 conformance

>
> I'm more interested in the semantics (what I described), than the protocol
> itself.

My understanding is that no one want to break the W3C WebSocket API, do you?

> The protocol in RFC 6455 is just one expression of those semantics.

Yes, I think so, and I want to discuss what the best protocol for the
WebSocket API is.



On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 19 February 2014 21:16, Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com> wrote:
> > So, you're also not interested in preserving RSV1-3 as-is even as
> > per-message basis?
>
> I'm more interested in the semantics (what I described), than the
> protocol itself.  The protocol in RFC 6455 is just one expression of
> those semantics.  I believe that an alternative expression of the
> semantics can be found that is more suited to it's environment (in
> this case HTTP/2).
>
> This doesn't mean that what RSV1-3 represent (extensibility) is not
> expressed.  But the idea that you need to meticulously preserve the
> protocol, while perhaps intuitive to some, to me is a little
> repugnant.
>