-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
feat(http): Add Sec-WebSocket-* headers #25115
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
@bsmth We discussed the failing check in yesterday's BCD call, and the recommendation is to file an issue in w3c/browser-specs to add this RFC. |
Changes to browser-specs incoming in next release: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, and copying from RFC 6455 compliance is plausible, but I would prefer to extract the unrelated fixes to a separate PR (it'll be a no-brainer to approve).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nit: Extract these unrelated fixes to a separate PR.
@@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ | |||
"firefox": { | |||
"version_added": "1.5", | |||
"notes": [ | |||
"Before Firefox 128, the `getBBox()` method retured an empty `DOMRect` when there is no fill ([bug 1019326](https://bugzil.la/1019326)).", | |||
"Before Firefox 128, the `getBBox()` method returned an empty `DOMRect` when there is no fill ([bug 1019326](https://bugzil.la/1019326)).", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nit: Extract these unrelated fixes to a separate PR.
Adding data in for
Sec-WebSocket-*
headers. I am copying over info fromapi.WebSocket.protocol_rfc_6455
->browser-compat-data/api/WebSocket.json
Line 673 in 7f9f083
Test results and supporting details
I began testing using BrowserStack, but support goes so far back, it's probably easier to mirror the rfc_6455 compliance entry instead.
Other changes:
Related issues and pull requests