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

RE: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet

From: Yoav Nir <synp71@live.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 08:12:02 +0000
Message-ID: <DUB124-W33632EF4AA24A1BB638A11B1E60@phx.gbl>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>


> From: mnot@mnot.net
> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 14:07:59 +1100
> CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
> To: matthew@kerwin.net.au
> Subject: Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet
> 
> Hi Matthew,
> 
> On 20/11/2013, at 12:53 PM, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au> wrote:
> 
> > I explicitly propose the status quo: leave any recommendation (normative or otherwise) out of the base HTTP/2.0 spec.  Instead I suggest we/you/someone create a separate (informational?) document describing these issues.
> > 
> > At the least, I would imagine the base spec to be (hopefully) current and useful for decades, whereas what various browsers do or don't support, or even what browsers exist or matter in the market, might be a bit more transient; thus any documentation that depends on them should be equally versatile.  Updating or obsoleting an informational RFC would be a lot easier than keeping a "that's *so* 2013" social reference in the HTTP/2.0 spec, and possibly pointing out to people that it, in fact, no longer applies, or whatever.
> 
> So, to be clear, you'd be OK with a separate Informational RFC called something like "HTTP/2.0 for Web Browsers" or "HTTP/2.0 for the Open Web" or similar, even if that spec constrained (or eliminated) using HTTP/2.0 for http:// URLs?
Of course, I would argue "why only for version 2?" if somebody wrote that draft.  		 	   		  
Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2013 08:12:29 UTC

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