On Tue, 16 Jun 2009, Greg Wilkins wrote: > > > is there any reason from a browser prospective to avoid the inclusion > > of META-DATA in this kind of protocol? > > [...] > > I'm not sure if there are other objections - Ian? It would be best to ask browser vendors directly, but off-hand I can't think of any reasons other than the necessary added complexity (parsing the metadata, handling exposing it to scripts, defining all the error handling to ensure bogus servers are handled predictably, etc). > Note that I would say that WebSocket also has meta-data. Just that it > is fixed and cannot be overridden. For example the plain text UTF-8 > datagram is the meta-data default for the sentinel framing of websocket. Insofar as framing is metadata, yes. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.