The setTimeout comment in the w3 tracker is a pretty good reason. I
strongly agree with Olli Pettay's comment.
onemptybuffer would bring sockets in line with the server-side "ondrain"
event that we see in node.js and other socket APIs.
I disagree with Hixie's rationale that we need to give vendors time to
catch-up before asking them to implement that event.
For a counter-point, AFAIK, we're not doing heavy multiplexing or other
such exotic items. That's fine. This feature is basic.
-Charles
On 5/8/2012 12:56 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
I think it would be reasonable to defer the feature requested in 15210 to a
future version of Web Sockets API. It would also be reasonable to include it if
anyone feels strongly. Was a reason cited for why 15210 should be considered
critical? I could not find one in the minutes.
Cheers,
Maciej
On May 3, 2012, at 3:41 PM, Arthur Barstow<art.bars...@nokia.com> wrote:
During WebApps' May 2 discussion about the Web Sockets API CR, four Sockets API
bugs were identified as high priority to fix: 16157, 16708, 16703 and 15210.
Immediately after that discussion, Hixie checked in fixes for 16157, 16708 and
16703and these changes will require the spec going back to LC.
Since 15210 remains open, before I start a CfC for a new LC, I would like some
feedback on whether the new LC should be blocked until 15210 is fixed, or if we
should move toward a new LC without the fix (and thus consider 15210 for the
next version of the spec). If you have any comments, please send them by May 10.
-AB
[Mins] http://www.w3.org/2012/05/02-webapps-minutes.html#item08
[CR] http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/CR-websockets-20111208/
[Bugz] http://tinyurl.com/Bugz-Web-Socket-API
[15210] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15210
