Re: [websockets] Getting WebSockets API to Last Call

Regarding the bugs Adrian identified in the e-mail below, here is my 
take on the status:

* Resolved: NeedsInfo: 9973, 12180, 13104; WontFix: 12816, 13178
* Moved to another component: 10213
* Open and considered Editorial (thus will not block LC): 12510, 13162, 
13180 and 13172 (not in Adrian's original list)

Since Adrian's email, Brian submitted two additional bugs that are Open:

13294 "The send() method should fail the WebSocket connection when data 
cannot be sent "
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13294

13295 "The "make disappear a WebSocket object" case should not fail the 
WebSocket connection"
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13295

Based on the various comments on 12917 (currently Resolved as WontFix), 
there is no consensus on this bug:

<http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12917>.

I will follow up separately on 12917 via the [1] thread.

Comments, corrections, etc. on the above status are welcome.

-Art Barstow

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JulSep/0241.html

On 7/7/11 6:00 PM, ext Adrian Bateman wrote:
> We're keen to resolve the remaining issues with the WebSockets API and have a timetable
> to get to Candidate Recommendation. From informal conversations we've had, we believe
> other browser vendors share this goal. I think the current WebSocket API is feature
> complete and meets the requirements for publishing a Last Call working draft to
> encourage wider review and feedback. There are no tracker issues for WebSockets. Here
> is my analysis of the outstanding bugs (not closed, where resolution not Fixed).
> I believe the outstanding issues could be resolved as Last Call comments and would like
> to see a CfC to publish a LCWD shortly.
>
> 9973 - If the entry's name is "sec-websocket-protocol" 0 please don't put normative
> requirements in parenthesis
> Resolved, NeedsInfo
> MICROSOFT PROPOSAL: close the bug - this bug is a year old, likely out of date now, and
> from an anonymous contributor
>
> 10213 - The definition of "absolute url" makeshttps:foo  not an absolute url
> Open, Assigned to Adam Barth
> MICROSOFT PROPOSAL: Section 3 of the protocol spec
> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-09#section-3) shows the
> valid syntax for a ws-URI. We believe the API should throw a SYNTAX_ERR if the address
> supplied does not match this format.
>
> 12180 - give the name of url to download the Jetty server
> Resolved, NeedsInfo - this bug is from an anonymous contributor from 4 months ago
> MICROSOFT PROPOSAL: close the bug - the API spec doesn't need to link to server implementations
>
> 12510 - Specs split off from HTML5 (like WebSockets) need to have xrefs linked, otherwise
> they're ambiguous
> Reopened, Assigned to Ian Hickson
> MICROSOFT PROPOSAL: this is an editorial bug that should not block Last Call
>
> 12816 - Make second argument in constructor an object for future extensibility
> Resolved, WontFix
> MICROSOFT PROPOSAL: We think the second argument should be an object, not only for future
> extensibility but to allow binaryType to be set now.
>
> 12917 - "deflate-stream" should be an optional extension when establishing a connection
> Resolved, WontFix
> MICROSOFT PROPOSAL: We strongly disagree with the API spec overruling the protocol spec
> on what is optional in the protocol. The API spec should not normatively mention specific
> extensions. References to "deflate-stream" should be informative and only provided as examples.
>
> 13104 - 1) ping(msg); //allow client to send server ping as per websocket spec 2) onpong();
> //allow client to receive response of ping
> Open, Assigned to Ian Hickson
> MICROSOFT PROPOSAL: We don't think this is necessary.
>
> 13162 - The notes really do need to be cleaned up to be made explicit.
> Open, Assigned to Ian Hickson
> MICROSOFT PROPOSAL: This is an editorial bug and should not block Last Call
>
> 13178 - binaryType should be immutable after connection is established
> Open, Assigned to Ian Hickson
> MICROSOFT PROPOSAL: We'd like to see the spec updated as outlined in this bug.
>
> 13180 - [Editorial] Causes that lead to failing the WebSocket connection, which results
> in an error event, should be more clearly specified
> Open, Assigned to Ian Hickson
> MICROSOFT PROPOSAL: This is an editorial issue and should not block Last Call.
>

Received on Thursday, 21 July 2011 14:23:35 UTC