On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 4:01 PM, David Levin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 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? >> > > He's saying if the protocol changes to be incompatible, then it will no > longer be ws:, wss: > Yes, but once a browser ships ws/wss then we're stuck with that version of the protocol. If it starts to catch on, then browsers will need to implement it for a very long time to come. That's what happened with LocalStorage. By using webkit-ws/webkit-wss we're giving ourselves some wiggle-room until we're sure we're happy with the protocol. And I'm not convinced that we'll know whether we're happy until we have some data from real-world use of WebSockets. (Which should start coming in soon after Chrome 4 ships.) > 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. >> >> J >> >> _______________________________________________ >> webkit-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev >> >> >
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
