Re: Moving forward with HTTP/2.0: proposed charter

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> [snip]
>
> Any such scheme is going to have to balance the concerns and gain
> consensus; e.g., telling people that new headers have to be defined twice
> (as HTTP/1.x and HTTP/2.x) probably isn't going to fly, because of the
> burdens that places on new headers as well as intermediaries.
>
>
Indeed. What would be far more likely (and useful) is to define *new*
headers strictly in HTTP/2.x terms and provide a canonical translation of
those into 1.1. Implementors that care about the new headers will make it
work; implementors who don't could easily ignore them.

Regardless, thank you for the clarification

- James


> Cheers,
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham
> http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>
>