On May 13, 2010, at 9:00 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 5/13/10 7:55 PM, Perry Smith wrote: >> Its not that hard and it won't happen that often. And it gives >> the javascript authors more control and choices. > > If a situation doesn't happen often, then historically speaking most authors > will have no provisions to handle it. Try browsing the web with non-default > colors set in your browser, with a default font size that's not 16px, or with > a 13px minimum font size set. These aren't exactly hard things to deal with, > but authors just don't deal with them. I sincerely doubt they'd deal with > the possibility of a websocket not actually opening unless is was _very_ > common. > > Maybe the spec should say that attempts to open a websocket should have a 50% > chance of failing even if there's no good reason for it, just so it is in > fact common for opening to fail? ;) (No, that's not a completely serious > proposal, but it's not completely facetious either; it would take something > like that for authors to handle failure properly.)
That wasn't what I meant. "it won't happen often" I meant, the need to have a queueing mechanism written in Javascript. i.e. most applications of web sockets would want to just fail. The few that do not, can roll their own.
