Richard's Hotmail wrote:
Hi,
I've been told that this is the correct forum for lobbying/venting about
html5 changes; I hope that this is correct?
Er, I think it is the correct forum for discussing the spec. I'm less sure that
lobbying/venting are useful forms of discussion.
My particular beef is with the intended WebSocket support, and specifically
the restrictive nature of its implementation. I respectfully, yet forcefully,
suggest that the intended implementation is complete crap and you'd do
better to look at existing Socket support from SUN Java, Adobe Flex, and
Microsoft Silverlight before engraving anything into stone!
Nothing is engraved into stone, at least until browsers ship something and are
unable to change it because it would adversely affect their marketshare. As far
as I am aware there are currently no browser-based implementations of
WebSockets, so it is relatively easy to make changes.
What we need (and is a really great idea) is native HTML/JavaScript support
for Sockets - What we don't need is someone re-inventing sockets 'cos they think
they can do it better.
You might find [1] helpful for understanding the rationale behind the current
WebSockets spec. If you have use cases that cannot be met with the current
design, it would be helpful if you could explain the use case and how you can
deal with the security issues identified in that email.
[1] http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2008-July/015252.html
--
"Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?"
-- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
