On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 2:11 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote: > On 19 February 2014 21:57, Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com> wrote: > > Also, reusing the identifier "RSV1-3" we now have in RFC6455 for those > > booleans (not pointing syntax. not pointing 1 bit serialization. but > > semantics) eases writing extensions that work for both RFC6455 and > > WS/HTTP/2.0. This is not-so-important but another concern Yutaka and HyBi > > people should have. > > I don't consider those booleans to be part of the websocket semantics. > They certainly don't surface at the API level. > I wanted to talk about minor editorial merit in that paragraph. If we adopt different ways (identifiers) to attach boolean info to messages which implement a certain extension, people writing the spec for the extension for both WS/HTTP/2.0 and RFC6455 need to write algorithm for both. I.e. - [WS/HTTP/2.0] Include "compressed" field with value of "1" in HEADERS - [RFC6455] Set RSV1 bit As I said in the original post, this is not-so-important.
Received on Friday, 21 February 2014 03:34:27 UTC