- From: Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>
- Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 13:39:05 -0400
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Le 27 févr. 2013 à 17:11, Mark Nottingham a écrit : > I'm OK if we choose to use "HTTP/2.0 Framing" and stick with it -- it's just that it's used inconsistently now. However, this may not be the best name, because it has "HTTP/2.0" in it, and then we go and talk about using HTTP/2.0 *on* it. OTOH I'm not thrilled about introducing Yet Another Acronym... FWIW, +1 and not only for the discussions of this group, but for the future and people having to discuss different parts of the specifications when fixing/implementing libraries. I would keep HTTP/2.0 for the semantics. and something-else for the connection parts. -- Karl Dubost http://www.la-grange.net/karl/
Received on Monday, 11 March 2013 17:39:12 UTC