On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Ian Hickson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 13 Nov 2009, Jeremy Orlow wrote: >> >> By using webkit-ws/webkit-wss we're giving ourselves some wiggle-room until >> we're sure we're happy with the protocol. > > Not really. It just means that we might end up stuck with "webkit-ws:" > instead of "ws:".
Does the IETF WG have a timeline? My understanding is that IETF WG take at least a year to do anything. Even the timeline for the cookie WG is a year, and we're just speccing widely implemented behavior. I don't think we want to be stuck with webkit-ws forever. Another possibility is x-ws, implying that it's experimental. Honestly, if IETF going to break the protocol, they might as well use a new scheme, like websocket or hybi. This discussion reminds me of <http://diveintomark.org/archives/2009/11/02/why-do-we-have-an-img-element>. Adam _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
