- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 23:33:53 +0200
- To: "Takeshi Yoshino" <tyoshino@google.com>, "Jason Duell" <jduell.mcbugs@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@annevk.nl>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 21:33:47 +0200, Jason Duell <jduell.mcbugs@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 05/28/2012 04:03 AM, Takeshi Yoshino wrote:
>> The protocol spec has defined 1015, but I think we should not pass
>> through it to the WebSocket API.
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011OctDec/0437.html
>>
>> I think 1006 is the right code for all of WebSocket handshake failure,
>> TLS failure and TCP connection failure. If the language in
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6455#section-7.4.1 is not good, we can
>> add "cannot be opened or" before "closed abnormally" for clarification.
>>
> I could certainly live with this. It would be nice to have it clarified
> in the W3C websocket spec that we won't be delivering 1015 (I assume
> it's too late to take it out of RFC 6455).
You can submit errata, but should probably raise it on hybi first.
> And to have the additional language you suggest for 1006 ("connection
> could not be opened" or something like that) added somewhere (again I
> assume RFC 6455 isn't possible, but the IANA database and/or the W3C
> spec).
As above.
> best,
>
> Jason
> Mozilla
--
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Friday, 1 June 2012 21:33:50 UTC