On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 5:39 AM, Greg Wilkins <gregw at webtide.com> wrote: > The whatwg process relies on the consent of a single individual > (yourself) as editor. This position is an appointment made by an > invitation only committee made up of 9 representatives from > various browser manufacturers. You are also on that committee, > the spokesman for the group and an employee of the company that > is shipping the first client implementation. Yes, this is my biggest concern about the process so far - it seems very exclusionary to those of us who develop servers. So far, this is a significant portion of the community that I feel has not had a legitimate chance to provide any real input into the WebSocket protocol. Instead, as an httpd developer who knows just as much about HTTP as anyone else on this list, I just get the feeling that the browser developers are telling me that I need to implement a "protocol" without providing a legitimate opportunity for feedback. Instead, I just see that there have been unilateral decisions that have profound consequences (mandated port, conflation of security, etc.) that show little hope of being re-considered. It seems that folks are intending to rubber-stamp the draft from WHATWG which is...sad. As such, it often leaves me wondering whether I should even bother trying - so I applaud Greg for trying to speak up while also getting Jetty to speak WebSocket. I've expressed my feelings before that the current "draft" documents for WebSocket is pretty impenetrable and I hope that future IETF drafts alter it into something that is independently implementable by both server and client developers. Part of the elegance of HTTP is that it's pretty easy to implement a basic reasonably-conformant version - WebSocket simply does not have that property at this time. Since IETF 77 is in my backyard, I do hope to attend any WG sessions related to hybi. If folks are interested in having a working session on rewriting the latest draft into something that is more approachable, I'm definitely interested. I really would like to offer something constructive as I share the goals of the WG - there is a need for an async protocol, but I'm hard-pressed to stand behind the current process as I don't feel very enfranchised at the moment. -- justin
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.