You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hey there, I see there are some docs about passing authorization using the Sec-Websocket-Protocol header. While this is a clever workaround, it doesn't appear as though it'll actually work for websockets started from the browser. From the MDN article on websockets, only registered IANA subprotocols can be passed. Attempting to pass Bearer, 123 results in
VM3291:1 Uncaught DOMException: Failed to construct 'WebSocket': The subprotocol 'Bearer, 123' is invalid.
Was this implemented with browser compatibility in mind? Or was the idea that cookies would be the only browser-friendly authorization method?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hey there, I see there are some docs about passing authorization using the
Sec-Websocket-Protocol
header. While this is a clever workaround, it doesn't appear as though it'll actually work for websockets started from the browser. From the MDN article on websockets, only registered IANA subprotocols can be passed. Attempting to passBearer, 123
results inWas this implemented with browser compatibility in mind? Or was the idea that cookies would be the only browser-friendly authorization method?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: