Re: RfC: Is Web Sockets API ready for LC publication? [Was: Re: [websockets] Getting WebSockets API to Last Call]

Yesterday, Hixie checked in a fix for 13777. Bug 13104 (Enable keepalive on WebSocket API) was closed (WontFix) but reopened on September 18. Since various group members agree with not addressing this bug for v1, I will proceed with a CfC to publish a LC of the Web Socket API. (Perhaps this bu

Re: RfC: Is Web Sockets API ready for LC publication? [Was: Re: [websockets] Getting WebSockets API to Last Call]

As an update on this RfC, note that ATM, 13777 is the only non-editorial bug that remains open: I would appreciate it, if people would please provide input on this bug. -AB On 9/9/11 6:05 PM, ext Brian Raymor wrote: 13777 - The WebSocke

RfC: Is Web Sockets API ready for LC publication? [Was: Re: [websockets] Getting WebSockets API to Last Call]

Hixie, Brian, Jonas, All, Since Brian sent the original e-mail [1], there has been some Bugzilla activity and there are now 5 open bugs for Web Sockets. It appears to me (and please correct me if I'm wrong) the ".binaryType" issue Jonas raised on the list [2] will not result in any spec change

Re: [websockets] Getting WebSockets API to Last Call

Regarding the bugs Adrian identified in the e-mail below, here is my take on the status: * Resolved: NeedsInfo: 9973, 12180, 13104; WontFix: 12816, 13178 * Moved to another component: 10213 * Open and considered Editorial (thus will not block LC): 12510, 13162, 13180 and 13172 (not in Adrian's

Re: [websockets] Getting WebSockets API to Last Call

On Wed, 13 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Marcos Caceres wrote: > >> On 7/11/11 8:23 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > >> > On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote: > >> > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Ian Hickson  wrote

Re: [websockets] Getting WebSockets API to Last Call

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Marcos Caceres wrote: >> On 7/11/11 8:23 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: >> > On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Ian Hickson  wrote: >> > > > On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:

Re: [websockets] Getting WebSockets API to Last Call

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >> >> >> Can you list the reasons for why you don't think we will not need any >> >> of the types listed in the following email: >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/07

Re: [websockets] Getting WebSockets API to Last Call

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote: > >> > >> Can you list the reasons for why you don't think we will not need any > >> of the types listed in the following email: > >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/0732.html > > > > I addressed those in the e-mail you repli

Re: [websockets] Getting WebSockets API to Last Call

On 7/11/11 8:36 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Marcos Caceres wrote: On 7/11/11 8:23 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote: On the other hand, we should [no

Re: [websockets] Getting WebSockets API to Last Call

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: >> > On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >> >> >> On the other hand, we should [not] do things now that are likely to >> >> create a mor

Re: [websockets] Getting WebSockets API to Last Call

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Marcos Caceres wrote: > On 7/11/11 8:23 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: > > > > On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand, we should [not] do t

Re: [websockets] Getting WebSockets API to Last Call

On 07/11/2011 09:23 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote: On the other hand, we should [not] do things now that are likely to create a more complicated or inconsistent pla

Re: [websockets] Getting WebSockets API to Last Call

On 7/11/11 8:23 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote: On the other hand, we should [not] do things now that are likely to create a more complicated or inconsistent platfor

Re: [websockets] Getting WebSockets API to Last Call

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: > > On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote: > >> > >> On the other hand, we should [not] do things now that are likely to > >> create a more complicated or inconsistent platform in the future. > > > >

Re: [websockets] Getting WebSockets API to Last Call

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >> On the other hand, we should [not] do things now that are likely to >> create a more complicated or inconsistent platform in the future. > > I agree, indeed that's my main reason for not wanting t

Re: [websockets] Getting WebSockets API to Last Call

On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > On the other hand, we should [not] do things now that are likely to > create a more complicated or inconsistent platform in the future. I agree, indeed that's my main reason for not wanting to make objects inherit from EventTarget. :-) > It's a jud

Re: [websockets] Getting WebSockets API to Last Call

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Thu, 7 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> > 12816 - Make second argument in constructor an object for future >> > extensibility >> >> I'd like to see this change made too. >> >> So far there's been two counter proposals in the bug for how to

Re: [websockets] Getting WebSockets API to Last Call

On Thu, 7 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > 12816 - Make second argument in constructor an object for future > > extensibility > > I'd like to see this change made too. > > So far there's been two counter proposals in the bug for how to deal > with future extensions (which I strongly suspect we

Re: [websockets] Getting WebSockets API to Last Call

On Thu, 7 Jul 2011, Adrian Bateman wrote: > > 10213 - The definition of "absolute url" makes https:foo not an absolute url > Open, Assigned to Adam Barth > MICROSOFT PROPOSAL: Section 3 of the protocol spec > (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-09#section-3) > shows t

Re: [websockets] Getting WebSockets API to Last Call

On 7/7/11 6:00 PM, ext Adrian Bateman wrote: We're keen to resolve the remaining issues with the WebSockets API and have a timetable to get to Candidate Recommendation. From informal conversations we've had, we believe other browser vendors share this goal. I think the current WebSocket API is

Re: [websockets] Getting WebSockets API to Last Call

On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 00:55:11 +0200, Jonas Sicking wrote: I don't have an opinion on url parsing since I don't know enough about it. However throwing an exception on an invalid URI sounds good to me. I do not think we would want to start throwing on spaces appearing in e.g. the path segment.

RE: [websockets] Getting WebSockets API to Last Call

On Thursday, July 07, 2011 3:55 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Adrian Bateman wrote: > > 12917 - "deflate-stream" should be an optional extension when establishing > > a connection > > Resolved, WontFix > > MICROSOFT PROPOSAL: We strongly disagree with the API spec overr

Re: [websockets] Getting WebSockets API to Last Call

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Adrian Bateman wrote: > We're keen to resolve the remaining issues with the WebSockets API and have a > timetable > to get to Candidate Recommendation. From informal conversations we've had, we > believe > other browser vendors share this goal. I think the current