Re: [websockets] Moving Web Sockets back to LCWD; is 15210 a showstopper?

The setTimeout comment in the w3 tracker is a pretty good reason. I 
strongly agree with Olli Pettay's comment.

onemptybuffer would bring sockets in line with the server-side "ondrain" 
event that we see in node.js and other socket APIs.
I disagree with Hixie's rationale that we need to give vendors time to 
catch-up before asking them to implement that event.

For a counter-point, AFAIK, we're not doing heavy multiplexing or other 
such exotic items. That's fine. This feature is basic.

-Charles

On 5/8/2012 12:56 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> I think it would be reasonable to defer the feature requested in 15210 to a future version of Web Sockets API. It would also be reasonable to include it if anyone feels strongly. Was a reason cited for why 15210 should be considered critical? I could not find one in the minutes.
>
> Cheers,
> Maciej
>
>
> On May 3, 2012, at 3:41 PM, Arthur Barstow<art.barstow@nokia.com>  wrote:
>
>> During WebApps' May 2 discussion about the Web Sockets API CR, four Sockets API bugs were identified as high priority to fix: 16157, 16708, 16703 and 15210. Immediately after that discussion, Hixie checked in fixes for 16157, 16708 and 16703and these changes will require the spec going back to LC.
>>
>> Since 15210 remains open, before I start a CfC for a new LC, I would like some feedback on whether the new LC should be blocked until 15210 is fixed, or if we should move toward a new LC without the fix (and thus consider 15210 for the next version of the spec). If you have any comments, please send them by May 10.
>>
>> -AB
>>
>> [Mins] http://www.w3.org/2012/05/02-webapps-minutes.html#item08
>> [CR] http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/CR-websockets-20111208/
>> [Bugz] http://tinyurl.com/Bugz-Web-Socket-API
>> [15210] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15210
>>
>

Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2012 19:51:48 UTC