Re: <meta name=register>, Browser as passive tool

Dmitry,

I think this proposal about things that are not covered by the WG 
charter (<http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html>). At all.

You may want to consider the WEBAPI WG, but I'm not sure.

Best regards, Julian



Dmitry Turin wrote:
> Julian, maybe we prolong discussion !?
> 
> 
> 
>>>> If document has this META
> 
>>>> <head>
> 
>>>>  <meta name=register content=785>
> 
>>>> </head>
> 
>>>> let browser send to the following to server
> 
>>>> <formdata>
> 
>>>>   <meta name=register content=785>
> 
>>>> </formdata>
> 
>>>> at once after loading document.
> 
> JR>> Do you have a concrete proposal how to do that over HTTP?
> 
> DT>   We have __no requirement of compatibility__,
> 
> DT> so why it should be necessarily
> 
> DT> (1)   80-th port on browser side for 'messages of server by its initiative' ?
> 
> DT> (2.1) exactly HTTP ?
> 
> DT>    (for example, i'd like to prefer XML instead of HTTP.
> 
> DT>    Besides my taste, this has consequences, going far:
> 
> DT>    if we accept XML for backward messages,
> 
> DT>    then there is hope,
> 
> DT>    that we shall be able to replace HTTP by XML for forward messages
> 
> DT>    - for messages, which we use now).
> 
> DT> (2.2) current HTTP without extension ?
> 
> 
> 
> DT> P.S.
> 
> DT>   Apparently browser's window should send indentified of itself
> 
> DT> with <meta name=register content=785>.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dmitry Turin
> 
> HTML6     (6.4.0)  http://html60.chat.ru
> 
> SQL4      (4.2.0)  http://sql40.chat.ru
> 
> Unicode2  (2.0.1)  http://unicode2.chat.ru
> 
> Computer2 (2.0.3)  http://computer20.chat.ru
> 

Received on Monday, 27 August 2007 08:21:36 UTC