Re: [hybi] Proposed way forward for WebSockets

["Martin J. Dürst" <[e-mail]>]

On 2010/07/29 16:35, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 18:08:06 +0200, Jamie Lokier <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>> Critical issue:
>>
>> After the first deployment wave, how can client WebSocket
>> implementations request features without breaking the existing
>> services that *reject* and *close* connections with additional state
>> in the headers?
>
> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/complete/network.html#reading-the-client's-opening-handshake
>
>
> "Unrecognized fields can be safely ignored, and are probably either the
> result of intermediaries injecting fields unrelated to the operation of
> the WebSocket protocol, or clients that support future versions of the
> protocol offering options that the server doesn't support."

So, just to take an example, let's say it turned out that browsers sent 
the User-Agent: header field, and some servers actually looked at it.

Would your understanding of extensibility mean that we can explain this 
as a (as of yet) not standardized future version/feature of WebSockets? 
And that if it turned out that this were reasonably prevalent, and 
remotely useful, somebody could write an RFC (as part of this WGs future 
charter or as an individual submission) that would 'legalize' this header.

I think it would help at least my understanding of your extensibility 
model if you could confirm/deny the above.


Regards,    Martin.

-- 
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:[e-mail]