3 ms·
I think the WebSockets movement just died a little. It's already hard enough to write modern web-apps that work across a multitude of browsers either replicati
by kondro 16y ago
I think the WebSockets movement just died a little.
It's already hard enough to write modern web-apps that work across a multitude of browsers either replicating features with crappy techniques in the older ones or being given the capability to degrade gracefully. Now, a feature that was expected on modern browsers now doesn't exist on some of them.
Yes, I understand that there are security concerns, but it was concerns like this that lead browser makers to disable cross-domain JavaScript rather than implement a solution to do it securely. I hope WebSockets doesn't end up going the same way.
- Tichy 16y agoMaybe there is no simple solution.
- kondro 16y agoFor WebSockets? Maybe there isn't. It's not really the browsers fault necessarily, W3C takes many, many years to ratify standards so they go ahead an implement things themselves causing incompatibilities and, in the case of WebSockets, for them to provide features they now have to take away again. For cross-site scripting, there are many ways this could be enabled. Like the way Flash does it, for example, by placing a file at the root of a domain which specifies all the other domains it is allowed to talk to. Providing a manifest like this is likely the simplest solution to a problem that makes designing thick-clients quite annoying.