3 ms·

As far as I know, IE9 isn't planning to support WebSockets, either. How does Microsoft expect to break back into the modern browser space if IE9 doesn't even ma

by djacobs 16y ago

As far as I know, IE9 isn't planning to support WebSockets, either. How does Microsoft expect to break back into the modern browser space if IE9 doesn't even match (let alone exceed) the current offerings from Mozilla?

jokermatt999 16y ago
"For the client side, WebSocket was to be implemented in Firefox 4, Google Chrome 4, Opera 11 and Safari 5, as well as the mobile version of Safari in iOS 4.2.[1] However, although present, support is now disabled by default in Firefox and Opera, due to concerns over security vulnerabilities.[2][3][4]" It looks like WebSockets have issues beyond lack of support in IE. I agree on the rest, but this isn't just MS not supporting them.
- axod 16y ago
  Even if WebSocket didn't have supposed security concerns when used with buggy web caches, I'm extremely doubtful that MS would have supported them.
  - chc 16y ago
    I agree with you, but at this point we're just axe-grinding. It's unfair to fault Microsoft for not implementing it in an alternate reality where it was a good idea to do so.
    - axod 16y ago
      It's been live, working, and providing awesomeness in Chrome for ages.
      - chc 16y ago
        But not Mozilla and Opera, and Google have said they're prepared to pull support if the vulnerabilities become more than theoretical. I just don't think it's fair to single out Microsoft for not implementing something that half the browsers out there (including IE's closest rival) intentionally disabled. I wish we could have WebSockets, but it was not Microsoft's failure to implement that made them unusable in the general case.
        axod 16y ago
        > "I wish we could have WebSockets" About 20% of Mibbit users are using websocket and have been for several months. It's inevitable that any security worries will be rectified (Hopefully by simplifying the protocol rather than adding another layer of needless complexity), and browsers will update. MS may as well implement what exists now, even if they decide to leave it up to the user to enable it.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
matei 16y ago
I think in the end, deciding to not support something is really a power they have, since this decision will influence the developers in not using that something. If IE won't support websockets, we won't use websockets because of lacking support in IE, so it's not really that big of a deal to them (the average end user doesn't decide what browser to use based on what support it has for web sockets)
- derleth 16y ago
  > If IE won't support websockets, we won't use websockets because of lacking support in IE This is already untrue for a number of websites. IE isn't as dominant as it once was.
  - matei 16y ago
    I don't think any of my clients would accept dropping support for IE.
    - estel 16y ago
      Indeed. I also don't think any clients will accept dropping support for IE6-8, so the IE9 release, whilst nice, will never be a limiting factor in feature support.

by djacobs 16y ago

jokermatt999 16y ago

"For the client side, WebSocket was to be implemented in Firefox 4, Google Chrome 4, Opera 11 and Safari 5, as well as the mobile version of Safari in iOS 4.2.[1] However, although present, support is now disabled by default in Firefox and Opera, due to concerns over security vulnerabilities.[2][3][4]" It looks like WebSockets have issues beyond lack of support in IE. I agree on the rest, but this isn't just MS not supporting them.

axod 16y ago
Even if WebSocket didn't have supposed security concerns when used with buggy web caches, I'm extremely doubtful that MS would have supported them.
- chc 16y ago
  I agree with you, but at this point we're just axe-grinding. It's unfair to fault Microsoft for not implementing it in an alternate reality where it was a good idea to do so.
  - axod 16y ago
    It's been live, working, and providing awesomeness in Chrome for ages.
    - chc 16y ago
      But not Mozilla and Opera, and Google have said they're prepared to pull support if the vulnerabilities become more than theoretical. I just don't think it's fair to single out Microsoft for not implementing something that half the browsers out there (including IE's closest rival) intentionally disabled. I wish we could have WebSockets, but it was not Microsoft's failure to implement that made them unusable in the general case.
      - axod 16y ago
        > "I wish we could have WebSockets" About 20% of Mibbit users are using websocket and have been for several months. It's inevitable that any security worries will be rectified (Hopefully by simplifying the protocol rather than adding another layer of needless complexity), and browsers will update. MS may as well implement what exists now, even if they decide to leave it up to the user to enable it.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

matei 16y ago

I think in the end, deciding to not support something is really a power they have, since this decision will influence the developers in not using that something. If IE won't support websockets, we won't use websockets because of lacking support in IE, so it's not really that big of a deal to them (the average end user doesn't decide what browser to use based on what support it has for web sockets)

derleth 16y ago
> If IE won't support websockets, we won't use websockets because of lacking support in IE This is already untrue for a number of websites. IE isn't as dominant as it once was.
- matei 16y ago
  I don't think any of my clients would accept dropping support for IE.
  - estel 16y ago
    Indeed. I also don't think any clients will accept dropping support for IE6-8, so the IE9 release, whilst nice, will never be a limiting factor in feature support.