> I'm happy to have something like SSE but the protocol needs more time to cook.
Just how well done do you like your protocols? SSE has been part of the WHATWG standard for almost 20 years.
Every protocol requires some sort of data encoding. For SSE you need to either restrict yourself to payloads that can never conflict with the message structure (e.g. an enumeration of short strings to indicate different sorts of events), or you need to encode the data.
It sounds like you are trying to send raw, unencoded data and are surprised that it sometimes conflicts with the message structure. Well of course it does! You can’t blame the protocol for that.
Every other protocol I've used has a standard way to encode arbitrary data, but especially text data, usually using some kind of escape sequence. SSE does not.
Just because it has been around for a long time does not mean it is well thought out or complete.
Just how well done do you like your protocols? SSE has been part of the WHATWG standard for almost 20 years.
Every protocol requires some sort of data encoding. For SSE you need to either restrict yourself to payloads that can never conflict with the message structure (e.g. an enumeration of short strings to indicate different sorts of events), or you need to encode the data.
It sounds like you are trying to send raw, unencoded data and are surprised that it sometimes conflicts with the message structure. Well of course it does! You can’t blame the protocol for that.