Re: [hybi] The future of WebSockets, and the WiSH proposal

Andy Green <> Tue, 25 April 2017 09:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D34E3129AB5 for <>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 02:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aRKwCFOhU9yx for <>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 02:02:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC1F4129AB3 for <>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 02:02:00 -0700 (PDT)
To: Takeshi Yoshino <>, Anne van Kesteren <>
Cc: "" <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Andy Green <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 17:01:18 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [hybi] The future of WebSockets, and the WiSH proposal
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 09:02:24 -0000

On 04/25/2017 04:51 PM, Takeshi Yoshino wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Anne van Kesteren < 
> <>> wrote:
>     On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Takeshi Yoshino
>     < <>> wrote:
>     > We’d like to hear your feedback on the WiSH proposal and/or any
>     general
>     > thoughts on how to evolve WS.
>     I still don't really understand why we'd put new code in browsers
>     before gaining some experience with full-duplex fetch(). What
>     advantages remain? That you get a dedicated connection? That the
>     frames are slightly smaller? Can we find ways to get those advantages
>     into fetch() and a future version of HTTP?
> Yes, theoretically there are lots of overlap between what the 
> fetch()/Streams effort realizes and current/WiSH-ed WebSocket realizes.

Can someone point the rump of hybi-subscribers who have no idea what you 
are talking about with this "fetch() / Streams" stuff to some definitive 
> However, there is existing big WebSocket ecosystem based on the 
> WebSocket web API, server APIs designed to match it, intermediaries, 
> etc. I'd like to hear opinions from them. That's actually one of the 
> main purposes of this discussion.
> The bottom of the background section of the I-D 
> ( is 
> unintentionally (I forgot to update it) left to be talking about using 
> WiSH framing over fetch()/Streams to improve the WebSocket ecosystem 
> without introducing any dedicated browser code. This is also a 
> possible option though it requires developers to include Polyfill in 
> their code.

The basic problem underneath all this is the guys who defined http/2 
considered ws so declasse they did not need to honor the existing JS 
apis in http/2.

They took care of every other functionality in use in http/1 in http/2 
as far as I know.  But ws is a red-haired stepchild to them... the 
official stance is use http/1.  What about it offends their delicate 
sensibilities I dunno.

Anyway I appreciate Yoshino-san at least threw his hat in the ring with 
some data.


> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list