On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 04:26:48AM +0100, Michaela Merz wrote:
> Second: It would be great to finally be able to accept incoming
> connections. There's access to cameras and microphones - why not allow
> us the ability to code servers in the browser? Maybe in combination with
> my suggestion above? Websites would be able to offer webdav simply by
> 'mounting' the browser (no pun intended) and the browser would do
> caching/forwarding/encrypting ..  Imaging being able to directly access
> files on a web site without web download.

It's not connection oriented, but there is the ability to push opaque
junk at the browser via.


You seem to want a more connection oriented stream capability. To satsify,
a push-api could have a payload that is a wss:// url it could connect to.

Alas push-api is pretty crap- it's just a opaque transfer of whatever.
There's no content-type for the incoming push data, no resource identifier,
it's just whatever the pusher felt like tossing on the line and no way to
do any normal HTTP enveloping. It's utterly mad Push is so opaque. No love
on the issue, #81, to spec out some web-like characteristics for it. I have
no idea why Push is so ridiculously un-web. :/



Reply via email to