Re: [hybi] web socket protocol in "last call"?

["Infinity Linden (Meadhbh Hamrick)" <infinity at lindenlab.com>]

cool. that's good to hear. i think i was associating "last call" with
something more like AUTH48 in the IETF.

<random_babbling_on_a_public_list>

i'm still vaguely concerned about the state of WS as a substrate for
something like BWTP or RHTTP. but i think what i'm hearing is that WS
is approaching  consensus for the browser use case.

HyBi has a few people who are interested primarily in (bidirectional)
HTTP as a substrate for other application layer protocols. is there a
similar constituency in WHATWG? (probably should have asked this way
earlier.) in other words, while i think pushing HTML+JPEG over HTTP is
cool and about the only use case browser vendors are going to worry
about; my personal interest is in pushing xml, json, and random weird
BASE64 encoded binary blobs with metadata over the connection.

</random_babbling_on_a_public_list>


--
   infinity linden (aka meadhbh hamrick)  *  it's pronounced "maeve"
         http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/User:Infinity_Linden

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 15:13, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs at apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 28, 2009, at 1:01 PM, Infinity Linden (Meadhbh Hamrick) wrote:
>
>> wow. WS is in last call? not being able to continue work on putting
>> something like RHTTP or BWTP over WS is a bit of a deal-breaker for
>> me.
>>
>> but. i suppose there's no reason we can't work on BWTP independent of
>> WS. i was just sorta hoping there would have been a way to coordinate
>> these efforts.
>>
>> i guess there's also no reason now to meet at apachecon next week
>> about WS. i mean, why bother meeting about something you can't change?
>
>
> WHATWG Last Call doesn't mean "can't change". It's just soliciting comments.
> And it is in no way binding on the IETF.
>
> In practice, the factor that will reduce the rate of change in the future
> will be when implementations (client-side and server-side) ship and Web
> content starts using it.
>
> WebKit has an implementation of the WebSocket API and protocol in progress.
> We do not anticipate that work reaching a freeze point in the very near
> future. We'll think about taking appropriate measures to avoid locking in
> the protocol when we ship, to give the IETF Working Group a chance to define
> the protocol.
>
> Given all this, I do think meeting in person to discuss is useful.
>
> Regards,
> Maciej
>
>