W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2013

Re: should tools like wget implement HTTP 2.0?

From: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 10:37:42 -0800 (PST)
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.01.1311031035500.7378@egate.xpasc.com>

AND, wget and curl are valuable diagnostic tools when websites are
not working for whatever reason. So I'd recommend that their
respective development communities implement 2.0 support

On Sun, 3 Nov 2013, Martin Thomson wrote:

> On 3 November 2013 08:59,  <bizzbyster@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Is there any reason why HTTP file transfer clients like curl and wget should
> > ever implement 2.0?
> 
> That's not our choice.  Though I would suggest that some of the wget
> modes of operation would benefit; and there are potentially some
> advantages to be gained from having opportunistic encryption for http:
> resources.
> 
> > More radically, since there is no benefit for uploads, should HTTP 2.0 even
> > support the upload verbs?
> 
> Absolutely yes.  There's more to HTTP PUT than file upload.  And the
> benefits to proxies and gateways in terms of multiplexing are
> incredible.
> 
Received on Sunday, 3 November 2013 18:38:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:19 UTC