+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #1056444 +++ Several changes have been made to the API since our implementation was written. In general, these changes take two forms: conversion of EventHandlers to Promises, and the use of Streams for input and output. Spec reference: http://www.w3.org/2012/sysapps/tcp-udp-sockets/#interface-tcpsocket

My (concise, potentially incorrect) understanding of the situation as last discussed with :sicking and the spec author is that: 1) The spec is dead and the editor is done with it. 2) No one plans to implement it / converge to it. 3) If Mozilla made any changes to our API, we might as well just adopt the Chrome Apps socket API since you can wrap/polyfill TCP into any form you want, generally, and it's a net improvement to converge to one API. The mooted dev-b2g and dev-webapi forums are, I believe, where the Mozilla discussions took place, if you are interested. I can also help dig them up. That all said, it would be totally sweet to adapt the TCP API to use the Streams API when available.

(In reply to Andrew Sutherland [:asuth] from comment #1) > My (concise, potentially incorrect) understanding of the situation as last > discussed with :sicking and the spec author is that: > 1) The spec is dead and the editor is done with it. > 2) No one plans to implement it / converge to it. > 3) If Mozilla made any changes to our API, we might as well just adopt the > Chrome Apps socket API since you can wrap/polyfill TCP into any form you > want, generally, and it's a net improvement to converge to one API. Thanks! I managed to track down some of that and deduce the rest after I filed the bug. I was thrown off by finding an editor's draft that was less than a month old, which gave the impression of active development. It appears to have been an automated build triggered by an update to the "README" in the git repo. *sigh* Given the fact that this spec has been abandoned, I agree that making changes to our interface to conform to it doesn't make a lot of sense. We should simply document what we have, and make it available to WebExtensions. Unless Chrome intends to expose chrome.sockets to WebExtensions, the value of implementing an act-alike API has questionable value. I'm closing this bug as being unactionable.