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

Re: I revised the pro/contra document

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 20:53:21 -0800
Message-ID: <CABP7Rbfe8T+hR0k89KLFUFX16+r1Dm2s_aSO7mBvNYoShia4UA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
Cc: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, Alexandre Anzala-Yamajako <anzalaya@gmail.com>, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
+1... The "they can just use 1.1" argument is getting rather tiresome.
On Nov 23, 2013 8:44 PM, "Matthew Kerwin" <matthew@kerwin.net.au> wrote:

> 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 04:53:48 UTC

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