- From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 04:53:48 +0000
- To: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>, "webtransport@ietf.org" <webtransport@ietf.org>
- CC: "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
I have a question somewhat similar to Bernard's question. On 2019/11/19 11:41, Bernard Aboba wrote: > This is a straightforward draft, so my questions don't relate to the > content such much as the context: > > The draft extends the CONNECT handshake to allow "bytestream" to be > provided for the :protocol pseudo-header field, instead of "websocket". > > Is there corresponding JS API work contemplated (or ongoing) to support > this? > > The "WebSocketStream API design" > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1La1ehXw76HP6n1uUeks-WJGFgAnpX2tCjKts7QFJ57Y/> > indicates "a 1:1 correspondence between chunks and WebSocket messages" so > that it doesn't appear to take "bytestream" into account. The WebSocket protocol and API use messages. The draft provides the "datagram" :protocol pseudo-header for message-based communication. The implementation is very simple: each HTTP/2 DATA frame is a message aka datagram. So far so good. But the WebSocket protocol distinguishes two types of messages: Text messages and Binary messages (in terms of implementation, the distinction is carried on frames, which make up messages, but the type has to be the same for all frames of a message). Also, text messages are strictly restricted to always use UTF-8 (see https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6455#section-1.2). The distinction between binary and text datagrams, and the limitation of text datagrams to UTF-8, considerably simplifies the creation of datagram-based protocols and increases interoperability. I wonder why this wasn't included in the Webtransport draft, and hope that it can be added. [cc.ed to the W3C i18n WG] Regards, Martin.
Received on Tuesday, 19 November 2019 04:53:57 UTC