[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [hybi] Fwd: Web sockets and existing HTTP stacks

From: Christian Biesinger <cbiesinger at gmail.com>
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie at shareable.org>
Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky at mit.edu>, hybi at ietf.org
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:49:55 +0100
In-reply-to: <20091120160423.GC20634 at shareable.org>
References: <557ae280911171402v7546e5e7n93a1e57f87dc10e5 at mail.gmail.com> <557ae280911200708l358293eeif999d8c1b8f6f5d8 at mail.gmail.com> <20091120160423.GC20634 at shareable.org>

On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Jamie Lokier <jamie at shareable.org> wrote:
> This has been the cause of quite some discussion on this list.
>
> The main spec editor believes WebSocket should intentionally fail when
> encountering a proxy etc. and the web application should fall back to
> some other method in that case, or simply not support those cases.

Well, I'd support that view since it simplifies implementation a lot
:) But a lot of people are using proxies... And the spec in its
current form does require dealing with proxies.

-christian

References:
- [hybi] Fwd: Web sockets and existing HTTP stacks
  - From: Christian Biesinger
- Re: [hybi] Fwd: Web sockets and existing HTTP stacks
  - From: Jamie Lokier

Prev by Date: Re: [hybi] Fwd: Web sockets and existing HTTP stacks
Next by Date: Re: [hybi] Races in websocket API?
Previous by thread: Re: [hybi] Fwd: Web sockets and existing HTTP stacks
Next by thread: Re: [hybi] Fwd: Web sockets and existing HTTP stacks
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.