[whatwg] BWTP for WebSocket transfer protocol

Greg Wilkins gregw at mortbay.com
Wed Aug 12 04:03:35 PDT 2009

Jonas Sicking wrote:

> I'd rather not debate about which process should be used to get to a
> good protocol. I'd rather debate concrete proposals.


So I think I'll keep this response short and see if I can
come up with a BWTP mkII  proposal that addresses
the feedback that I've received.

> So, can you describe an application which takes advantage of this
> added value. I.e. an application that transmits JSON, and that would
> not be put at some type of disadvantage (slower, harder to implement,
> impossible to implement etc) if it couldn't use the new 0x01 frame
> type.

An application that sends just a single content type like JSON is
not going to have any advantage from that proposal, because it
can assume that messages will be text/json;charset=utf8 and
be more efficient than anything that actually transmits that.

But any application that might send multiple types and/or charsets
will benefit.   Also any application that might want to conditionally
compress or encrypt a message would benefit.

Also browser that want to share a single connection between multiple
WebSocket API instances would benefit as they could use the metadata
to organize the virtual connections without the need to alter the


More information about the whatwg mailing list