[whatwg] TCPConnection feedback

[Michael Carter]

>
> The protocol should not require any data (not even hello - it should
> function as an ordinary TCPConnection similar to implementations in
> java, c# or any other major programming language. If not, it should be
> called something else - as it is not a TCP connection.
>
>
>
>  I agree completely. Just providing async HTTP is a weak use case compared
> to allowing client-side access to millions of existing (opted-in) services
> and gadgets.
>
> Shannon
>
>
It's clear that we need some kind of opt-in strategy or all web viewers will
become spam bots in short order. While I think it will be extremely useful
to have a raw tcp connection in the browser, and indeed you could use an
external service like dns to handle connection authorization, I think that
it will be much more difficult to drive adoption to that kind of standard.
In the meantime, we need to make the protocol enforce the opt-in.

In that case I agree that the name shouldn't be TCPConnection. I propose
SocketConnection instead.

-Michael Carter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20080618/a2f3505c/attachment-0001.htm>