- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:03:16 -0800
- To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
On 27 February 2013 10:51, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote: > Then you can't do websockets, etc or whatever other protocol (maybe video?, > who knows) the web platform decides to do in the future on the same > socket/session. Not true. Write another RFC that says how you can share the connection with websockets. That might have to change some of the rules, loosen some of the constraints, add some features. > That would be a poor tradeoff.. and for what gain? > What is the additional complexity of having the framing allow for non HTTP > semantics? The cost is in building generality. Generality in engineering is never general enough to solve unforeseen problems, and it never ever comes with a zero complexity cost.
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 19:03:44 UTC