[webkit-dev] Staging WebSocket protocol deployment
Fumitoshi Ukai (鵜飼文敏)
ukai at chromium.org
Tue Nov 17 20:38:03 PST 2009
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 6:08 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs at apple.com> wrote:
> On Nov 15, 2009, at 5:18 PM, Yuzo Fujishima wrote:
>> I'm against prefixing with "webkit-" because of the following reasons.
>> Reason 1: It connotes that the feature is experimental. That means there
>> will be less developers seriously use that feature. Without serious use,
>> we'll have less serious feedbacks from the real world. If the Web Socket
>> has serious flaws, we should rather know them sooner than later. I'd say
>> only serious uses can help us find the flaws faster.
> I think this captures the root of the disagreement. Personally, I would
> like to do something to send the message that WebSocket is still somewhat
> experimental. It's true that the spec has been in development for a long
> time. But we are only now seeing the first client-side and server-side
> implementations. A number of issues were discovered in that process, and I'd
> personally like to see some more experimental implementations before we lose
> the ability to make incompatible changes. See below for some specific
>> Reason 2: What should other browser vendors do? Should they use
>> chrome-ws, firefox-ws, ie-ws, opera-ws, ..., etc? I believe at least
>> will not happy with that. If the vendors need to reach the consensus on
>> common experimental name, say prelim-ws, then why not just use ws instead?
> Historically, we haven't had a problem with WebKit-prefixed features - it
> seems that other browser vendors implement under their own prefix and
> content adapts to deal.
> Anyway, getting back to the suggestions... I think it's reasonable at this
> point to indicate that the WebSocket protocol is somewhat experimental
> (probably more so than the API). I will recommend doing something along
> those lines for the next release of Safari. If we can get rough consensus
> within the WebKit community that we should label the protocol experimental,
> and how we should do so, then we can just make the change in WebKit and
> vendor releases will follow along.
> Here is an extended list of ideas (ones that I think are practically
> 1) Change the URI schemes to "webkit-ws" and "webkit-wss" - the vendor
> prefix strategy.
> 2) Change the URI schemes to "x-ws" and "x-wss" - a vendor-independent
> experimental prefix.
> 3) Don't change the URI schemes at all, but communicate in some public way
> that the protocol is not completely locked down yet, and we are largely
> looking for early adopter feedback. We could do this in the form of a WebKit
> blog post, for example. And we could reinforce that in developer
> documentation for WebKit-based products.
> 4) Support both unprefixed and prefixed URI schemes, and in addition
> publicize that we will maintain compatibility for the prefixed URI scheme
> but the unprefixed version may have to change (combo of 3 and either 1 or
> 5) Make the feature runtime switchable (using some semi-hidden UI) and off
> by default.
> I'd like to hear opinions on which of these is best.
I vote option (3).
Even if we keep current protocol stack with prefixed URI, I'm wondering any
websocket server implementation will keep compatibility with procotol of our
Or, if some websocket server implementation keeps compatible with prefixed
URI, I believe it's worse situation for future.
> I'd also like to hear if anyone feels that we should send the message that
> the WebSocket Protocol is production quality and we promise full
> compatibility going forward. Does anyone truly feel this way?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the webkit-dev