Hi, I'm against prefixing with "webkit-" because of the following reasons.
Reason 1: It connotes that the feature is experimental. That means there will be less developers seriously use that feature. Without serious use, we'll have less serious feedbacks from the real world. If the Web Socket has serious flaws, we should rather know them sooner than later. I'd say only serious uses can help us find the flaws faster. Reason 2: What should other browser vendors do? Should they use chrome-ws, firefox-ws, ie-ws, opera-ws, ..., etc? I believe at least developers will not happy with that. If the vendors need to reach the consensus on the common experimental name, say prelim-ws, then why not just use ws instead? Yuzo On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Adam Barth <aba...@webkit.org> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Adam Barth <aba...@webkit.org> wrote: > Does the IETF WG have a timeline? My understanding is that IETF WG > take at least a year to do anything.
Here's the timeline for the HyBi WG:
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki/HyBi
Goals and Milestones: --------------------- Mar-2010: WGLC on the Design Space characterization (Informational) May-2010: WGLC on Requirements document on Short term solution Jul-2010: WGLC on Requirements document on Long term solution Nov-2010: Requirements to IESG Mar-2011: WGLC on Short term solution improvements Nov-2011: WGLC on Long term solution protocol
I read this as one year for requirements and another year for a protocol assuming the WG stays on schedule.
Adam _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
