On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 18:52, Olli Pettay wrote:
> On 3/4/10 4:42 AM, Fumitoshi Ukai (鵜飼文敏) wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I noticed that WebSocket spec updated to not inlcude framing overhead in
>> bufferedAmount.
>>
> I asked that since from API point of view i
Hi,
I noticed that WebSocket spec updated to not inlcude framing overhead in
bufferedAmount.
http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/commit-watchers-whatwg.org/2010/003971.html
I tried to implement it in WebKit, but found it make hard to implement
correctly. https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35571
May/Should WebSocket use HttpOnly cookie while Handshaking?
I think it would be useful to use HttpOnly cookie on WebSocket so that we
could authenticate the WebSocket connection by the auth token cookie which
might be HttpOnly for security reason.
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Fumitoshi Ukai (榈~\椋兼~V~G鎫U~O) wrote:
> >
> > protocol now accepts U+0020. Is it ok to use U+0020 only in /protocol/ ?
> > (e.g. new WebSocket("ws://example.com/", " "); )
> > It seems space is optional after colon in field
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Fumitoshi Ukai (�µ~\飼æ~V~Gæ~U~O) wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > > On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Fumitoshi Ukai (榈~\椋兼~V~G鎫U~O) wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Control characters are allowed (thou
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Fumitoshi Ukai (榈~\椋兼~V~G鎫U~O) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Control characters are allowed (though using them would be silly).
> > > >
> > > > Why are control characters (except LF and CR) allowed?
> > >
> > > There doesn't
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Fumitoshi Ukai (�µ~\飼æ~V~Gæ~U~O) wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > > On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Fumitoshi Ukai (榈~\椋兼~V~G鎫U~O) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > At 1.130 of "The Web Socket API", it adds the su
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Fumitoshi Ukai (榈~\椋兼~V~G鎫U~O) wrote:
> >
> > At 1.130 of "The Web Socket API", it adds the sub-protocol name must be
> an
> > ASCII string with no U+000A LINE FEED (LF) or U+000D CARRIAGE RETURN (CR)
> > characters in it.
>
Hi,
At 1.130 of "The Web Socket API", it adds the sub-protocol name must be an
ASCII string with no U+000A LINE FEED (LF) or U+000D CARRIAGE RETURN (CR)
characters in it.
But "The Web Socket protocol" 3.1 Parsing Web Socket URLs, says
1. If /protocol/ is specified but is either the empty stri
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Fumitoshi Ukai (榈~\椋兼~V~G鎫U~O) wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, Alexey Proskuryakov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Currently, the Web Sockets API spec says that the WebSocket.
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, Alexey Proskuryakov wrote:
> >
> > Currently, the Web Sockets API spec says that the WebSocket.URL
> > attribute must just return a value that was passed to the WebSocket
> > constructor. This doesn't match how many other u
I've question about thread to run Web Socket feedback from the protocol.
If server sends back handshake response and a data frame, and close
immediately, fast enough to run JavaScript on browser, how readyState should
be?
1) When client recognizes handshake response header, it changes readyState
t
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Greg Wilkins wrote:
> Fumitoshi Ukai (鵜飼文敏) wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Greg Wilkins >
> > var ws = new WebSocket("ws://mysite.com
> > <http://mysite.com>","myprotocol");
&g
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Greg Wilkins wrote:
>
> Is there a race in the websocket API.
>
> When you do:
>
> var ws = new WebSocket("ws://mysite.com","myprotocol");
>
> then the spec says:
>
> Return a new WebSocket object, and continue these steps in the
> background (without blockin
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think 'readyState' should just go away since an application will
> > > > have to keep track of state updates through the fired events and use
> > > > try/catch blocks around all API ca
15 matches
Mail list logo
