On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > 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. > If you wish to introduce a particular browser supported semantic for which a specific implementation on the server is required, then people should be able to consult a standard that tells them how they have to provide this implementation. Therefore it is quite necessary to marry your desire to extend remote blobs to WS to a protocol, otherwise you'll have a browser implemented protocol that nobody knows how to implement.
Received on Friday, 3 August 2012 01:32:59 UTC