Interesting, do you have a source? Or did you try it?
> I am not sure what WebTransport would enable that isn't already possible with current APIs. Unreliable datagrams? WebRTC. Reliable bidirectional communication? WebSockets. WebTransport probably would make some of the usecases easier or more efficient but it's value proposition isn't well communicated or better yet, demonstrated.
The article does seem to answer these questions.
> Interesting, do you have a source? Or did you try it?
> The article does seem to answer these questions.
I wonder btw why they compare WebTransports datagrams to WebSockets reliable streams. The equivalent to WebSockets would be the reliable Streams API of WebTransport. The issue with Head Of Line blocking can be easily solved by opening multiple WebSocket connections. WebTransport just has that solved instead within the protocol.
Yeah, it seems there's an older entry in there that's confusing. Not sure.
> There's no usecase mentioned that is not possible today
WebTransport does not really do anything that was previously impossible from an API standpoint, it improves on existing methods.
> Head Of Line blocking can be easily solved by opening multiple WebSocket connections. WebTransport just has that solved instead within the protocol.
Yes, and solving it within the protocol is simpler and more efficient.
> It needs a bunch of examples
Agreed, that would be nice.
> Yeah, it seems there's an older entry in there that's confusing. Not sure.
> WebTransport does not really do anything that was previously impossible from an API standpoint, it improves on existing methods.