On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Florian Bösch <pya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote: > >> All WS usage requires a particular (application specific) implementation >> on the server, does it not? Notwithstanding that fact, such usage will fall >> into certain messaging patterns. I happened to give an example of two >> possible message patterns and showed how the proposal under discussion >> could address those patterns. It is not necessary to marry my proposal to a >> specific sub-protocol on WS in order to provide useful functionality that >> can be exploited by applications that use those functions. >> > > If you wish to introduce a particular browser supported semantic for which > a specific implementation on the server is required, then people should be > able to consult a standard that tells them how they have to provide this > implementation. Therefore it is quite necessary to marry your desire to > extend remote blobs to WS to a protocol, otherwise you'll have a browser > implemented protocol that nobody knows how to implement. > I am not proposing a "particular browser supported semantic" for a "specific implementation on the server". I have suggested, by way of example, two particular patterns be supported independently of any such implementation. I did not restrict the results to just those patterns in case someone wishes to generalize. That is little different from the proposed or implied XHR patterns being discussed.