> On 23 Jun 2016, at 15:36, Simone Bordet <simone.bor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Chris Hegarty <chris.hega...@oracle.com> > wrote: >> At one point I thought the same, but after, yet another, re-reading of the >> RFC >> I disagree. The semantics are somewhat stronger in WebSocket, albeit that >> the wording is a little squirrely : >> >> 5.5.1 Close [1] >> >> It SHOULD do so as soon as practical. An >> endpoint MAY delay sending a Close frame until its current message is >> sent (for instance, if the majority of a fragmented message is >> already sent, an endpoint MAY send the remaining fragments before >> sending a Close frame). > > And the disagreement is that TCP can send an unlimited amount of data > in half closed state, while WebSocket *seems* to hint that it *may* > send a *non specified* amount of fragments ?
Correct. The wording is somewhat stronger than a *hint*, but I agree that it is not mandated. What Pavel is trying to do with onClose is to adhere to the spirit of the RFC, rather than supporting open-ended half-close semantics. -Chris.
