This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 19614 - The first step of close method algorithm isn't clear to understand.
Summary: The first step of close method algorithm isn't clear to understand.
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: WHATWG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: HTML (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All All
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: Unsorted
Assignee: Ian 'Hixie' Hickson
QA Contact: contributor
URL: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/...
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2012-10-19 01:55 UTC by contributor
Modified: 2013-02-06 21:05 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments

Description contributor 2012-10-19 01:55:04 UTC 
Specification: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/
Multipage: http://www.whatwg.org/C#dom-websocket-close
Complete: http://www.whatwg.org/c#dom-websocket-close

Comment:
The first step of close method algorithm isn't clear to understand. Also as I
read in RFC http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6455#section-7.4.2 codes from 1000
to 4999 can appear in closing message. So I think this section of websocket
specification has error.

Posted from: 2a00:f480:4:148:69c5:a16b:6412:9c1e
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; ru; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110614 Firefox/3.6.18 WebMoney Advisor
Comment 1 silver_ghost 2012-11-12 20:30:22 UTC 
The first step of close method algorithm isn't clear to understand. Also as I read in RFC http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6455#section-7.4.2 codes from 1000 to 4999 can appear in closing message. But draft states that only 1000 and 3000-4999 are acceptable. So I think this section of websocket specification has error.
Comment 2 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2013-01-31 22:55:24 UTC 
Codes 1001-2999 are not codes that it makes sense for a script to specify.

Can you elaborate on why that paragraph is hard to understand, though? It seems precise and clear...
Comment 3 silver_ghost 2013-02-01 01:04:57 UTC 
1. I've just read http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6455#section-11.7. I think you are right. Maybe you are right: all other codes are for internal usage.
2. Is it clear whether "is not an integer equal to 1000 or in the range 3000 to 4999" is "!(1000 AND 3000..4999)" or "!1000 AND 3000..4999"?
Comment 4 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2013-02-06 21:03:54 UTC 
"!1000 AND 3000..4999" would be silly, since the first part wouldbe redundant with the second. But to remove all doubt, I've clarified the prose.

Thanks for the feedback; send me an e-mail if you would like to be acknowledged by a different name than "Silver Ghost". My e-mail is ian@hixie.ch.
Comment 5 contributor 2013-02-06 21:05:30 UTC 
Checked in as WHATWG revision r7698.
Check-in comment: Clarify
http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=7697&to=7698