- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 10:39:53 -0800
- To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 13 February 2013 07:59, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote: > Well, considering that the http/2 discussion has already touched on > the introduction of stateful compression, a potential switch to > binary-header values, elimination of various elements such as response > status-text and the host header, and so on, a discussion of > eliminating conneg wouldn't be too extreme :-) ... The one thing to > consider is that it ought to be at least possible to deprecate conneg > without removing it entirely. We'll need to keep the mechanism around > for http/1 interop and passthrough but we can say instruct developers > that conneg ought to be avoided and we can discuss and highlight the > appropriate alternatives. Dropping those other things is largely possible because they are either invalid, or are being replaced by an analogue. I think it unlikely that conneg can be safely dropped. There are just too many people using it.
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2013 18:40:20 UTC