W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2012

Re: on DNS records

From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:41:01 +1100
Message-ID: <CAH_y2NGNV8oeOnR7N5jAgjocYFuz114mgbf7bJHvC9-R79-BBQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 15 November 2012 09:30, Adrien W. de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> wrote:

>
> If we had change of scheme on the table (which I don't think we do), and
> possible change of port, then need it be http at all?
>
> e.g. are we then talking about new protocol on new port?
>
> I'd suggest "http2://" as a scheme name will be unpopular, maybe something
> more user-friendly for example "web://"


A URI scheme is not a protocol.    In terms of the web, when a browser
address line starts with "http://", that is specifying how the rest of the
URI should be interpreted, which together with the method and optional
content, defines the semantic of the operation the client is initiating.
That is a separate thing to the wire protocol used to transfer that
request, it just so happens that for the web both are called http (unless
you are using spdy as the wire protocol to transfer http semantics).

We want a upgrade wire protocol, not upgraded semantics.

Well actually we want both - as eventually I'd like to see other semantics
(eg websockets) transported over the HTTP/2.0 wire protocol.

cheers


-- 
Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
http://www.webtide.com
Developer advice and support from the Jetty & CometD experts.
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2012 23:41:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 14 November 2012 23:41:30 GMT