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

Re: should tools like wget implement HTTP 2.0?

From: <bizzbyster@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 11:56:42 -0800
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D2BFB257-E462-4676-9096-D2C4213118B3@gmail.com>
To: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
Okay that makes sense.

But I do have trouble seeing HTTP2 obsoleting HTTP1.1 since for so many purposes it is a step sideways. But let's see how it goes.

Thanks for the explanation,

Peter

On Nov 3, 2013, at 10:57 AM, Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se> wrote:

> On Sun, 3 Nov 2013, bizzbyster@gmail.com wrote:
> 
>> Is there any reason why HTTP file transfer clients like curl and wget should ever implement 2.0?
> 
> I can't speak for wget, but I'm the primary curl developer. We will certainly support HTTP2 and we're already in progress[1].
> 
> As has been mentioned already, these tools are used a lot like diagnostics tools and as command line versions of getting things done like a browser. When browsers do HTTP2, we need tools that can do HTTP2 as well.
> 
> when the "browser-web" moves to HTTP2, there's a big risk that the plain HTTP side of sites and services will be left behind and thus I find it very likely that in N years into the future, getting things with HTTP2 like the browsers do, will be more likely to succeed than asking for the same thing over old HTTP.
> 
> Finally, curl is actually built on libcurl which is a transfer library that works as a foundation to hundreds or thousands of applications and many of them will in fact benefit from the HTTP2 features much more than the curl command line tool will. Offering HTTP2 support for them is obvious to us.
> 
> [1] = http://curl.haxx.se/mail/lib-2013-09/0020.html
> 
> -- 
> 
> / daniel.haxx.se
Received on Sunday, 3 November 2013 19:57:12 UTC

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