Subject: Re: [hybi] Binary/Text Distinction (Hybi Volume 30, Number 63, et al)

From: "Bob Gezelter" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 16:07:23 -0700

John,

While it has been a long time to get to this point, I seriously doubt
that splitting the binary/text portion into a separate document will
take "years".

Since you enunciated the case for interspersed text/binary messages,
presumably the present WSAPI-WSAPI capabilities are, in your view,
completely adequate.

What is needed is for the relevant material to be excised from the
WebSocket protocol specification proper and formatted as a separate
document. The underlying WebSocket protocol specification will, of
course, be cited as the underlying framework.

At that point the separate message codes (binary/text) and various
comments about text messages limited to UTF-8 can be exised from the
WebSocket protocol specification.

Virtually all of the required material is already extant, it is mostly a
question of segregating the separate pieces.

- Bob Gezelter, http://www.rlgsc.com

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Binary/Text Distinction (Hybi Volume 30, Number 63, et al)
> From: John Tamplin <[email-masked]>
> Date: Mon, August 22, 2011 3:42 pm
> To: Bob Gezelter <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Stephen Williams <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], [email-masked],
>        [email-masked], Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>,       
> Iñaki_Baz_Castillo <[email-masked]>
> 
> 
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Bob Gezelter <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> > Removing the character encoding issue from the WebSocket protocol to a
> > separate small applications protocol for use between two WSAPI
> > instantiations over a WebSocket messaging connection would clarify the
> > protocol without costing efficiency.
> >
> 
> All I see it would do is mean the protocol isn't actually useful for its
> intended purpose until an additional standard were agreed upon and
> implemented.  As this one has taken years, let's not double the time until
> we can use it.
> 
> -- 
> John A. Tamplin
> Software Engineer (GWT), Google

---

From: "Bob Gezelter" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 02:33:34 -0700

Tobias,

The primary point that I must raise is that the change I am proposing
produces ZERO IMPACT to users at the level of the WHATWG WSAPI. Simply
put, the change is mostly editorial, with a very small at the source
code level (e.g., quite likely a single data structure definition and a
single or handful of function call parameter lists). 

There is also the improved clarity for implementers. There have been
numerous, extended dialogues on this list about issues, that in the end,
are the results of the commingling of different protocol levels within
the WebSocket protocol draft. This creates a false appearance of
semantic relevance where there is none.

I have designed, built, and maintained many systems over the years, and
I do not make suggestions of massive changes lightly. On the other hand,
starting with the well-acknowledged conceptual problems with OS/360, am
all too familiar with the long-term consequences of lesser choices (I do
not have my copy of Brooks' "Mythical Man Month" at hand, but my
recollection is that there are similar comments in both the Forward and
a later section recounting a scheduling meeting are relevant).

The semantics of whether to refer to a character, a code point, or an
encoding is besides the point. We know (or should know from a long
history of published and unpublished misadventures) that clean
separation has significant advantages. In the case of the WebSocket API
(which gave birth to this group), we have evolved a protocol with an
unneeded and also insufficient (more later) coupling between the task of
transporting bits (between browser API to server API) and the semantics
of those bits.

> Subject: Re: [hybi] Binary/Text Distinction (Hybi Volume 30, Number 63,
> et al)
> From: Tobias Oberstein <[email-masked]>
> Date: Mon, August 22, 2011 4:47 pm
> To: John Tamplin <[email-masked]>, Bob Gezelter <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, Bjoern Hoehrmann
> <[email-masked]>
> 
> 
> On 23.08.11 00:42, "John Tamplin" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Bob,
> There is no "issue". An issue is a problem, and there is none.
> 
> The term "character" is ill-defined. In the context of Unicode
> there are code points and encodings thereof. UTF-8 is well-defined,
> so here is no issue. So I assume that what you wanted to say is like
> in your earlier remarks, namely that the "issue" that you are trying
> to evoke is about having 2 opcodes which differentiate payload types
> into text/binary.
> 
> However, the reasoning: WS is a transport protocol, and thus should
> not include payload types is not pointing to a practical problem
> with WS. Where is the practical problem? What does not work with
> WS today, because it has opcodes designating payloads into text
> or binary?
> 
> > 
> > implemented.  As this one has taken years, let's not double the time until we
> > can use it.
> 
> ++1 John
> 
> Please don't open the pandora's box.
> 
> Over the weekend I started playing with FF8 on Android talking to
> our servers and PC all via WS + HTML5. It's awesome, it works - today!
> 
> Bob, now, you tell me you want to take that away/break again for
> months-years to come, because you find it "unclean" to have
> that payload type stuff in WS. Well. That's a tough call ...