5 ms·
"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.[
by 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 agoEven 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 agoI 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 agoIt's been live, working, and providing awesomeness in Chrome for ages.
- chc 16y agoBut 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.