4 ms·
Have you not followed any of the development of the WebSockets protocol and its eventual retraction? It was originally fairly simple and used the Upgrade header
by blasdel 15y ago
Have you not followed any of the development of the WebSockets protocol and its eventual retraction? It was originally fairly simple and used the Upgrade header that was specified for exactly this sort of thing. Unfortunately, since nobody really used it before, broken implementations in proxies are widespread making it impossible to use without opening up security vulnerabilities.
Sure, http-equiv could be parsed out by the webserver or a proxy and transformed into real headers, but since none of them bothered to do that, the browsers parse them. The end result to the user is largely the same (just that you're unlikely to successfully get a 304). Expecting proxies to do anything intelligent is what's "fundamentally incompatible", not http-equiv.
- pornel 15y agoRight, I forgot that `Upgrade` header requires reuse of the same TCP/IP connection. It looks like SPDY designers knew what they were doing when they picked custom `Alternate-Protocol` header. Still, an HTTP header for advertisement seems to me a much better solution than tying protocol negotiation to a markup language (what if I have image-serving CDN or JSON-spitting API?) I see in spdy-dev archives that SRV DNS records were also considered.