The setTimeout comment in the w3 tracker is a pretty good reason. I
strongly agree with Olli Pettay's comment.
onemptybuffer would bring sockets in line with the server-side "ondrain"
event that we see in node.js and other socket APIs.
I disagree with Hixie's rationale that we need to give vend
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> Anne - would you please clarify Opera's position re whether 15210 is
> critical for this first version of Web Sockets?
I mentioned https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15210 as
fixing it would affect requirements. I don't think we
On 5/8/12 3:56 AM, ext Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
I think it would be reasonable to defer the feature requested in 15210 to a
future version of Web Sockets API. It would also be reasonable to include it if
anyone feels strongly. Was a reason cited for why 15210 should be considered
critical? I c
I think it would be reasonable to defer the feature requested in 15210 to a
future version of Web Sockets API. It would also be reasonable to include it if
anyone feels strongly. Was a reason cited for why 15210 should be considered
critical? I could not find one in the minutes.
Cheers,
Maciej
On Thu, 3 May 2012, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>
> During WebApps' May 2 discussion about the Web Sockets API CR, four
> Sockets API bugs were identified as high priority to fix: 16157, 16708,
> 16703 and 15210. Immediately after that discussion, Hixie checked in
> fixes for 16157, 16708 and 16703and
