Re: [hybi] how do we move forward on agreeing on framing?

[Francis Brosnan Blazquez <[e-mail]>]

>         I think it is taking to much attention to include advanced
>         features in
>         the base protocol, or to define extensions that allow them,
>         especially
>         when those features can be implemented by protocols already
>         defined like
>         BEEP [1].
>  
> Unless you are suggesting that BEEP be adopted as the WebSocket
> protocol, I am not sure how the fact that BEEP supports these things
> helps us here.  I think BEEP is a bit heavy-weight for what we are
> trying to accomplish here, 

Ironically you state BEEP is to heavy-weight but at the end, if the
websocket protocol pretend to implement multiplexing and protocol
extension it will also have to solve the same problems (already)
addressed by BEEP.

If that point is reached, I'm sure anyone will be able to state again
BEEP is heavy-weight compared to WS because both will be the same.

> though certainly it can be a source of ideas.

Certainly.

Anyway. I'm not suggesting to use BEEP as websocket protocol because
that will force anyone to layer anything (from simple to complex
application protocol requirements) on top of a solution that is far more
complex than TCP. 

This also apply to WS.

Websocket should keep its focus on solving transport issues and let
other specialized protocols, like BEEP, to solve complex requirements on
top of it.
-- 
Francis Brosnan Blazquez <[e-mail]>
ASPL