Re: [hybi] Process! was: [whatwg] HttpOnly cookie for WebSocket?

[Maciej Stachowiak <[e-mail]>]

On Jan 29, 2010, at 7:56 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 5:39 AM, Greg Wilkins <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> The whatwg process relies on the consent of a single individual
>> (yourself) as editor.  This position is an appointment made by an
>> invitation only committee made up of 9 representatives from
>> various  browser manufacturers.   You are also on that committee,
>> the spokesman for the group and an employee of the company that
>> is shipping the first client implementation.
> 
> Yes, this is my biggest concern about the process so far - it seems
> very exclusionary to those of us who develop servers.  So far, this is
> a significant portion of the community that I feel has not had a
> legitimate chance to provide any real input into the WebSocket
> protocol.  Instead, as an httpd developer who knows just as much about
> HTTP as anyone else on this list, I just get the feeling that the
> browser developers are telling me that I need to implement a
> "protocol" without providing a legitimate opportunity for feedback.

The browser implementors working on WebSocket are very interested in meeting server-side needs. We want to implement features that will actually be used on the Web, not just for the fun of coding it. :-) Not only that, but many of us also have significant deployed and upcoming Web applications, and are considering the use of WebSocket in those offerings.

Thus, I would say that browser developers are very interested in input and feedback from server developers. In fact, I at least would like the final product to be something that server-side developers can feel positive about, and not just grudgingly accept.

If there are technical points of feedback that are not properly addressed, then let's have the conversation about those technical issues ASAP, and not mix it up with meta-level process issues.

Regards,
Maciej