Re: [hybi] Why HTTP Compliant

["Simon Pieters" <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 17:04:55 +0200, Greg Wilkins <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Simon,
>
> I agree that there are parts of the spec that imply arbitrary headers
> are acceptable,

They're acceptable in the sense that a conforming client would ignore  
them. They're not acceptable in the sense that servers are conforming if  
they send them.

[[
Sending the server's opening handshake

When a client establishes a WebSocket connection to a server, the server  
must run the following steps.
...
Send the following fields to the client. ...
]]


> but it also says:
>
>   Fields in the handshake are sent by the client in a random order; the
>    order is not meaningful.
>
>    Additional fields are used to select options in the WebSocket
>    protocol.  The only options available in this version are the ...

This text is non-normative.


> Ian has indicated that this means that the presence of other headers  
> means that
> the handshake should fail.

Indications from the editor are also non-normative. :-)


> It would be really good if I have misunderstood what he has said about  
> this, but
> at least some implementations of chromium do implement a ban on extra  
> headers.

Maybe you could file a bug? http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/list


> But I can't tell you exactly what versions of the draft they implement

It looks like -75 in chrome dev 6.0.408.1.


> (gee a
> ws version  string or user-agent header would be really really  
> useful!!!!!!)

I don't see how it would help you in this case.

-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software