[whatwg] Web Sockets
ian at hixie.ch
Tue Jul 15 00:20:23 PDT 2008
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Honza Bambas wrote:
> I am just concern about the way the protocol is specified. When I read
> the notes it is obvious the communication is actually an HTTP
> communication. Let's say I am a browser developer. Let's say I have to
> enhance my already fully armed browser with all the support for HTTP
> protocol and proxy/HTTP authentication, cookies, fixed many security
> issues etc. It would be reasonable to use my HTTP implementation and
> build ws/wss client protocol on top of it. Problem is that spec counts
> with exact byte compare but my implementation might possibly change
> headers order or HTTP version (to higher one). This would violate the
> WHATWG spec but the request according to HTTP protocol would still be
On the browser side I don't think there is any reason to reuse the HTTP
implementation. This isn't HTTP, and isn't intended, on the client-side,
to be even like HTTP. It's similarity to HTTP is only intended to allow
servers to Upgrade to WSP so that one IP/port combination can be shared
between HTTP and WSP.
> This might make the implementation (and therefor also adoption) of this
> technology more complicated for browser developers.
Given how easy the handshake is to implement on the client, I don't think
that's a concern at all.
> Why exactly is in the spec intention to do exact byte-to-byte match? To
> allow very easy implementation using scripts?
Making writing servers easy and having a handshake that other protocols
can't be tricked into resembling are the two primary driving forces behind
the current design.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg