- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 14:53:08 +0200
- To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Cc: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Jungkee Song <jungkee.song@samsung.com>
On Aug 2, 2012, at 17:45 , Glenn Adams wrote: > Are you saying I am objecting for the fun of it? Where did I say I don't like the idea? You'd best reread my messages. "For the fun of it" is an expression. You don't like the idea that the solutions proposed in this thread are restricted to what is supported by XHR, but have shown no indication of having encountered problems with this restriction (if restriction it is, which I don't believe). Put differently, based on your messages, which I have read, you appear to be arguing from technical purity rather than from technical need. > 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? Maybe there's a real world requirement underlying this that you're not stating — but it's not stated and so I can't just guess it. If you go back to my initial message, you will see that the issue I opened is based on a genuine problem that Jungkee bumped into while developing a Web application, for which we could find no proper workaround. Shortly thereafter, I also found the same problem, and solved it by simply dropping the feature (in this case, no pictures in an address book) — which is obviously far from ideal. When discussing it with others, several folks mentioned bumping into that limitation as well. I don't think we're just a bunch of crazy people and that we've hit this issue completely from left-field — indeed with usage of postMessage() increasing (and made all the more powerful with Intents) it seems highly likely to be a wall that other Web hackers will hit. In contrast, what you cite above as a use case seems rather abstract and — at least to me — contrived. I have some difficulty conceiving a situation, certainly not one common enough, in which one may be able to use WS but not XHR. Reading the above sounds to me like objecting to XHR not supporting telnet/RFC15 because if I stretch my imagination in just the right way I can conceive of a situation in which only telnet is available and HTTP isn't. So if you do have a use case, by all means please share it. If not, I maintain that you simply have no grounds for objection. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Monday, 6 August 2012 12:53:38 UTC