- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 06:43:06 +0100
- To: public-webapps@w3c.org, "Rick van Rein" <rick@openfortress.nl>
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 12:28:54 +0100, Rick van Rein <rick@openfortress.nl> wrote: > Hello, > > I would like to comment on the current (20120313) WebSockets > specification. > > The text sounds to me like it implicitly assumes that all > protocols are run over TCP. It could be said that the choice > of URL makes it sufficiently general to include UDP (and > possibly SCTP), but the usage of terms like connecting sends > a hint to implementers that support of TCP would suffice. > > If the intention is to create a TCP-only WebSocket, then I > think this should be made explicit. And if UDP would also > be supported, then a remark around connection states that > some apply only to connection-oriented URL protocols would > send a clearer message to implementers. > > I do think UDP is too important to discard from WebSockets; > among the things we can do with current technology (Flash or > Java) is a softphone running in a browser; in a TCP-only > HTML5 environment with deprecated support for these > technologies such options would have no standing ground. See PeerConnection in http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/webrtc.html > > I hope this is helpful feedback. > > > Best wishes, > > Rick van Rein > OpenFortress > -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Monday, 19 March 2012 05:43:30 UTC