WebTransport

[jesup]

What's the purpose of this, given WebTransport? That spec covers this usecase, and provides all sorts of additional benefits.

Where is the spec discussion on this?

Indications from major browsers?

[ricea]

There's a lot of existing deployed infrastructure using the WebSocket protocol that can benefit from adopting this API. Adopting WebTransport requires new infrastructure.

As the WebSocket protocol is simpler than WebTransport, there may still be a place for it even after WebTransport is widely adopted, but we won't know for 10 years or so.

The explainer should be updated to cover these points, but I haven't done so yet.

There's isn't a spec discussion yet, because the spec isn't finished.

Similarly, I haven't asked for browser feedback yet.

[jesup]

h3 is about 25% of all traffic currently, and rising (and H2 is near 50% and stable). WebTransport on H2 is coming. Please keep this aligned, api-wise, with WebTransport. Is this currently in Chrome, or was it removed after the origin trial 4 years ago? (The arguments for this are weaker given WebTransport's shipping status compared to back then.)

[unit9a]

@ricea Hi, i'm interested nerd. i was wondering if websocketsream can be compatible with rSocket

https://youtu.be/W7j4aJLusRY?si=9eOdPjW_AhtWAXSC&t=253

i am curious about using websocketsream with deno.js.

[ricea]

rSocket seems to be built around Reactive Streams, which are different from the WHATWG Streams used in browsers, so they're not going to align perfectly.