> > The protocol should not require any data (not even hello - it should > function as an ordinary TCPConnection similar to implementations in > java, c# or any other major programming language. If not, it should be > called something else - as it is not a TCP connection. > > > > I agree completely. Just providing async HTTP is a weak use case compared > to allowing client-side access to millions of existing (opted-in) services > and gadgets. > > Shannon > > It's clear that we need some kind of opt-in strategy or all web viewers will become spam bots in short order. While I think it will be extremely useful to have a raw tcp connection in the browser, and indeed you could use an external service like dns to handle connection authorization, I think that it will be much more difficult to drive adoption to that kind of standard. In the meantime, we need to make the protocol enforce the opt-in.
In that case I agree that the name shouldn't be TCPConnection. I propose SocketConnection instead. -Michael Carter