On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Jeremy Orlow <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Ian Hickson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009, Jeremy Orlow wrote: >> > >> > I'm not very familiar with the IETF's efforts, but my understanding is >> > that they were creating a competing protocol. Are they in fact creating >> > something that they want to submit as a replacement to WebSockets? If >> > so, why is WebSockets moving to last call? >> >> The IETF is just a bunch of open mailing lists, there's no "they" that >> doesn't include us. >> > > Sorry I wasn't clear in my word choice. I'm actually on one of the lists, > though I obviously don't follow it too closely. :-) > > The WebSocket protocol is pretty stable at this point. I doubt it will >> change much. The recent IETF meeting indicated that most people agree that >> we want something like WebSockets, and it has already received several >> years of public review. >> >> I wouldn't worry about changing the schemes or anything like that; if the >> protocol _does_ change in non-backwards-compatible ways, then we'll just >> change the protocol to not step on this code. > > > Just to be clear, you're saying that it's fairly unlikely that it's going > to change in a backwards compatible way? > > I ask because there's not much time left to make such decisions before it > goes into Chrome 4 without the "webkit-" prefix. And once that ship sails, > there's not much of a point to adding it. > On the other hand, as Ojan pointed out, LocalStorage is a perfect example of an API that was thought to be good and stable that became a disaster. Maybe it is best to put it behind a prefix until we have a better understanding of the beast and some real world implementation experience of the complete stack (not just the part in the browser). +1 for AP's plan.
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
