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

Re: should tools like wget implement HTTP 2.0?

From: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 21:15:07 +0000
To: "bizzbyster@gmail.com" <bizzbyster@gmail.com>
CC: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9DDD5EA5-9093-4ADF-85A8-EF2CEB8BFFAF@checkpoint.com>

On Nov 3, 2013, at 11:56 AM, bizzbyster@gmail.com wrote:

> 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.

Hi, Peter

I understand what you mean by "sideways", but why is that an obstacle for HTTP/2 replacing HTTP/1.1 ?

I could argue that the extra stuff in HTTP/1.0 and HTTP/1.1 are also not quite needed for WGET, and yet that tools did implement HTTP/1.1.

Is there some use case where HTTP/2 is inferior?  I realize that a minimal implementation is more complicated than a minimal implementation of HTTP/1. But assuming you have both an HTTP/2 and an HTTP/1 implementation, is there a reason to use the HTTP/1 in any case?

Yoav
Received on Sunday, 3 November 2013 21:15:58 UTC

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