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

Re: I revised the pro/contra document

From: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 14:40:04 +1000
Message-ID: <CACweHNDqh1s-0jnGK0eMT5d1ffbs_DzcYgCksX=7LfCZVXmMPQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
Cc: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>, Alexandre Anzala-Yamajako <anzalaya@gmail.com>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 24 November 2013 11:12, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com> wrote:

>
>  (that can still use HTTP/1.1 if they want to!)
>
>
I have to chime in here.  I keep seeing this point mentioned on the list.
 This is not a valid counterpoint, or a justification for adding something
to HTTP/2, or an excuse for ignoring someone's use-case for HTTP.  If
anybody chooses HTTP/1.1 over HTTP/2 for _any reason_ other than laziness
or stubborn change aversion, then HTTP/2 has failed in its primary purpose.

-- 
  Matthew Kerwin
  http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/
Received on Sunday, 24 November 2013 04:40:33 UTC

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