- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 07:20:23 +0000 (UTC)
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Honza Bambas wrote: > > I am just concern about the way the protocol is specified. When I read > the notes it is obvious the communication is actually an HTTP > communication. Let's say I am a browser developer. Let's say I have to > enhance my already fully armed browser with all the support for HTTP > protocol and proxy/HTTP authentication, cookies, fixed many security > issues etc. It would be reasonable to use my HTTP implementation and > build ws/wss client protocol on top of it. Problem is that spec counts > with exact byte compare but my implementation might possibly change > headers order or HTTP version (to higher one). This would violate the > WHATWG spec but the request according to HTTP protocol would still be > correct. On the browser side I don't think there is any reason to reuse the HTTP implementation. This isn't HTTP, and isn't intended, on the client-side, to be even like HTTP. It's similarity to HTTP is only intended to allow servers to Upgrade to WSP so that one IP/port combination can be shared between HTTP and WSP. > This might make the implementation (and therefor also adoption) of this > technology more complicated for browser developers. Given how easy the handshake is to implement on the client, I don't think that's a concern at all. > Why exactly is in the spec intention to do exact byte-to-byte match? To > allow very easy implementation using scripts? Making writing servers easy and having a handshake that other protocols can't be tricked into resembling are the two primary driving forces behind the current design. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2008 00:20:23 UTC