- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:25:33 +0100
- To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
- CC: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2013-01-24 17:18, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > ... > Which is exactly what I was doing > ... I didn't have that impression. Sorry. > ... > And I have been more than active in this conversation for your comments > to be rather patronizing. > > I thought that the conversation was taking HTTP2.0 to a place that I > think incompatible with good Web Services practice. People assured me > that they want one protocol. I then stated that if they want one > protocol the conversation is going in the wrong direction. > > I don't care how you polish the compression scheme, it is still going to > be a compression scheme. > ... IMHO: if HTTP/2 turns out to be something that can't be used with "web services", then we have screwed up things royally. That being said: can you clarify what you understand as "web service", and how exactly it differs from a browser scenario? That would be helpful to understand your concern. BTW: I'm also not a big fan of introducing too much complexity into the header representation; I think there's a consensus that that new complexity needs to be justified by what we gain from it. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2013 16:26:04 UTC