Adding the "websocket-stream" tag, sounds good Philip?

This is an interesting case. Because ofhttps://caniuse.com/websockets andhttps://websockets.spec.whatwg.org/ I would say that "websockets" is the best name for the base feature which goes back ages. But if we follow the style of turningCoolThing APIs into "cool-thing" identifiers, this should be "web-socket-stream". That looks weird alongside "websockets", but maybe that's OK.

We can always rename it later, but for now I guess I'd go with "web-socket-stream" based on theWebSocketStream API name. It helps that this is distinct from the oldWebSocket interface, and not astream property or something onWebSocket.

Thanks@foolip, I have no strong feelings about the id and accepted your suggestion. Merging this.

Do you want me to open a PR on web-features or do we have tooling in place that will signal to web-features that we have a new tag in BCD which will spawn something (automatically) over there?

@Elchi3 we don't have any tooling for this, but that would make a lot of sense. We could have a test that fails if there are any features in BCD that aren't in web-features, and a list for allowed exceptions which we could treat like a burndown list.