[whatwg] WebSocket support in HTML5
ddailey at zoominternet.net
Sun Sep 21 07:33:11 PDT 2008
My apologies for getting involved in a topic I confess to knowing very
little about (though I would like to be able to have direct client-to-client
communication for a variety of purposes including gaming and social
networking), but it seems like the question here is "what does the approach
you are advocating enable that the approach on the table doesn't do?" I
understand that you are saying the approach WHATWG and HTML5 WG have
undertaken is flawed (and I acknowledge your claim that lots of folks are
doing it better), but I really don't see what you are hoping to do that
these folks (whose expertise in such matters I would certainly be willing to
defer to) will not enable? Are you claiming, for example, that HTTP
roundtrips from a server to each client will be intrinsically too slow to
support such applications as gaming? If so, then it would seem that would be
a concrete complaint that the advocates of the current proposal could, in
theory, respond to. The history of the discussion referred to by the link,
indicates that as James says, the current proposal has undergone numerous
revisions based on input. Perhaps since you obviously care so much about it,
you can help the proposal to evolve into something which addresses your
Just the observation of a naive onlooker.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard's Hotmail" <maher_rj at hotmail.com>
To: <whatwg at whatwg.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: [whatwg] WebSocket support in HTML5
> Hi James,
> Thanks for the reply.
> My appologies for only having read the first ten years of that thread :-)
> Look, I'm not sure exactly what problem you guys are solving with HTML5's
> WebSockets but I wish you well. What I and *many* others are looking for
> Adobe Flex + MIcrosoft Silverlight) that for some strange reason don't
> to be subject to the same imaginary obstacles that are being discussed in
> that thread. Please explain what security vulnerabilities et al that
> SUN and Microsoft have foisted upon us that the HTML5 people wish to spare
> us from.
> If you guys live in a world where nothing but port 80 exists and no one
> ever want UDP datagrams (let alone Multicast messages) to their web
> then I have come to the wrong place :-(
> What goes up and down the network connection is our business not yours. No
> more bollocks protocols!
> As I said in the previous post, if you guys want to put a "Frame me like
> SOAP on HTTP) then go crazy; just don't try to shackle everyone else with
> the same restrictions.
> Please see the following for examples of what I am talking about: -
> In both cases the Username is TIER3_DEMO and the password is QUEUE.
> Applet and MXML source can be found at
> Once again, you are not introducing something new, but you *are*
> to introduce support for a tried and tested architecture and you are
> it hopelessly wrong :-(
> Cheers Richard Maher
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Graham" <jg307 at cam.ac.uk>
> To: "Richard's Hotmail" <maher_rj at hotmail.com>
> Cc: <whatwg at whatwg.org>
> Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 8:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [whatwg] WebSocket support in HTML5
>> 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
>> lobbying/venting are useful forms of discussion.
>> > My particular beef is with the intended WebSocket support, and
>> > the restrictive nature of its implementation. I respectfully, yet
>> > 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
>> 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.
>> > for Sockets - What we don't need is someone re-inventing sockets 'cos
> they think
>> > they can do it better.
>> You might find  helpful for understanding the rationale behind the
>> WebSockets spec. If you have use cases that cannot be met with the
>> design, it would be helpful if you could explain the use case and how you
>> deal with the security issues identified in that email.
>> "Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?"
>> -- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
More information about the whatwg