Re: [hybi] Extensibility mechanisms?

[Ian Hickson <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010, Greg Wilkins wrote:
> 
> You proposed 3 extension types.  I agree with 1 & 2,
> but #3 was:
> 
> > > 3. Opt-in experimental non-standard features implemented by Web browsers
> > >    and servers involved with the experiment.
> > >    This would use the same mechanism as #2, but would be limited to
> > >    experimental work, not widely deployed. For example, Firefox could
> > >    define a field that, when used by both client and server, switches the
> > >    connection from using the Web Socket framing to using an entirely
> > >    different framing based on HTTP chunking or BWTP or BEEP or something.
> 
> I believe that large scale deployments with complex infrastructure will 
> have significant problems if a HTTP connection that has been upgraded to 
> websocket is suddenly found to be carrying BEEP framing.

Why would a large scale deployments with complex infrastructure that can't 
handle BEEP framing opt-in to an experimental non-standard feature that 
uses BEEP framing?


> If you want to send BEEP over a HTTP connection, then you should upgrade 
> to BEEP, not websocket.

If the handshake involves an optional opt-in to a non-standard 
experimental feature, and you accept it, then you're not upgrading to Web 
Socket, you're upgrading to a non-standard protocol influenced by Web 
Sockets, as defined by the convention you and the client are using.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'