- From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
- Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 19:28:10 -0600
- To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 6:11 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, indeed. I'm wondering if there's a reasonable balance we can support > here... That is, provide for backwards compatibility for most but not all > 1.1 features and optimize for the most commonly used bits. Restricting set > cookie syntax could be one of those compromises. We should try to optimize bridging between HTTP/1.* and HTTP/2.0, but we should not penalize a pure HTTP/2.0 future in the process. The obvious thing to do is to provide an escape hatch for contents we don't optimize and not try to optimize absolutely everything. Nico --
Received on Sunday, 20 January 2013 01:28:34 UTC