On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > >> No it hasn't. If you want a real world use case it is this: my >> architectural constraints as an author for some particular usage requires >> that I use WS rather than XHR. I wish to have support for the construct >> being discussed with WS. How is that not a real world requirement? >> > > Your particular use-case of content/range aquisition over WS requires a > particular implementation on the server in order to understand the WS > application layer protocol. This particular implementation on the server of > yours is not implemented by any other common hosting infrastructure based > on any kind of existing standard. You should specify this particular > protocol standard to be used on top of WS first before you can even discuss > how your custom implementation of this protocol justifies enshrining it in > a browser standard. > All WS usage requires a particular (application specific) implementation on the server, does it not? Notwithstanding that fact, such usage will fall into certain messaging patterns. I happened to give an example of two possible message patterns and showed how the proposal under discussion could address those patterns. It is not necessary to marry my proposal to a specific sub-protocol on WS in order to provide useful functionality that can be exploited by applications that use those functions.
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2012 15:59:45 UTC