[whatwg] BWTP for WebSocket transfer protocol

Greg Wilkins gregw at mortbay.com
Tue Aug 11 16:50:26 PDT 2009

Wellington Fernando de Macedo wrote:
>> "message segmentation" (...) aren't much important in
>> bidirectional-communication.
> No. I'm wrong.  Because of virtual connections "message segmentation" is
> necessary.
> I think WS could support these features (like they are specified in the
> BTWP proposal) through its websocket-protocol header. In such a way the
> WS could work with both protocols.


I too agree that the ws protocol as proposed could be improved to support
some of the key features that are being discussed here.   I actually
started this by proposing some such extensions to the ws protocol.

However, I have reservations about creating an entire protocol that
will effect servers, proxies gateways and browsers on the basis of
a single JavaScript API.

I think the protocol for bidirectional communication over the
internet should be considered and designed with uses other than
just the js API.    There are many other uses for bidirectional
communication over the web that will bypass firewalls.

The authors of the websocket protocol are looking for the simplest
protocol that will support their current API.  Thus the suggestions
to include virtual channels, extensible mime-types and segmentation
were deemed too complex.      Thus I think it is the IETF that
really needs to come to the party with a multi-purpose protocol
proposal that will satisfy all bidirectional web use-cases, not
just the js API.     Thus the hybi effort at IETF is looking
at bidirection web, rather than just websocket.


More information about the whatwg mailing list