Re: [hybi] Protocol simplicity and the "amateur programmer" standard

[James Graham <[e-mail]>]

On 07/26/2010 05:10 PM, Greg Wilkins wrote:
>
> I do not think the "we've shipped it so you have to rubber stamp it as
> an ietf protocol" is an winning argument.

To be clear, my argument was intended to focus on market realities. If 
browsers stay on their current course, a version of WebSockets much like 
the -76 draft will, assuming it is not a complete failure, be a de-facto 
part of the web platform within a short timescale, irrespective of what 
the IETF does.

> This WG should then be focused on coming up with a 1.1 version of the
> protocol that is an ietf standard and does address the wider concerns
> that are more of a concern of the IETF WG.

That is fine as long as you have the requirement that 1.1 is backwards 
compatible with 1.0. That means substantial breaking changes to e.g the 
handshake need to happen on the 1.0 timescale.

> Secondly, by getting something out that can start getting wider usage, I
> believe that will give more background on which to base our
> discussions.  Unfortunately I expect that this will result in some
> painful user experiences as they find out how much work an application
> has to do to realistically use raw websockets... but that will at least
> drive some demand for the features that have been rejected to date as
> too complex.

I agree it makes sense to find out what the actual pain points are 
instead of guessing.