W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: [websockets] Making optional extensions mandatory in the API (was RE: Getting WebSockets API to Last Call)

From: イアンフェッティ <ifette@google.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:14:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CAF4kx8eZxrXbL_Ek0JbdN80hDK-NsTTzaLJX63JE2FrSLANr_A@mail.gmail.com>
To: James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, "Web Applications Working Group WG (public-webapps@w3.org)" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "jonas@sicking.cc" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "simonp@opera.com" <simonp@opera.com>, Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
I don't think we want to "forbid" any extensions. The whole point of
extensions is to allow people to do something that doesn't necessarily have
consensus by a broad enough group to be in the base protocol. That said, I
think a lot of people would be happier if deflate-stream were an independent
document as opposed to being the only extension included in the core
specification as a "known extension".


2011/7/27 James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>

> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) <ifette@google.com>wrote:
>> We are talking about it at IETF81 this week.
>> That said, I think either way browsers should not require deflate-stream.
>> I am hoping we can make forward progress on deflate-application-data (
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tyoshino-hybi-websocket-perframe-deflate-01).
>> If we can get that through the process I could live with Chrome being
>> required to support that. As for the protocol doc, the protocol lists
>> deflate-stream as an example, not a requirement, so the mere fact that I
>> don't want to support that particular extension isn't necessarily the
>> strongest argument for taking it out of the protocol as the protocol doesn't
>> require that it be supported. The API should not require the support of that
>> particular extension either, as that extension is particularly bad.
> Sounds like the consensus is to forbid this extension at the API layer,
> then.
> - James
>> -Ian
>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>wrote:
>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 11:04:09 -0700, Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> So, let me correct my text by s/XHR/HTML5 <http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/
>>>> >/**.
>>> HTML5 is mostly transport-layer agnostic.
>>> I am not sure why we are going through this theoretical side-quest on
>>> where we should state what browsers are required to implement from HTTP to
>>> function. The HTTP protocol has its own set of problems and this is all
>>> largely orthogonal to what we should do with the WebSocket protocol and API.
>>> If you do not think this particular extension makes sense raise it as a
>>> last call issue with the WebSocket protocol and ask for the API to require
>>> implementations to not support it. Lets not meta-argue about this.
>>> --
>>> Anne van Kesteren
>>> http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 27 July 2011 22:15:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:23 UTC