- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 15:41:46 -0700
- To: Fred Akalin <akalin@google.com>
- Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>, Patrick Pelletier <code@funwithsoftware.org>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, IETF HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
An alternative possible approach could build on the typed codec work.. that is, use compact opaque binary values for user agent as an alternative to the current string-based value. For those who need the backwards compatibility, the legacy string values would still be available and usable.. but we'd have a simple transition path for something better. On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Fred Akalin <akalin@google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> > wrote: >> >> But if HTTP/2.0 limits User-Agent to 32 bytes, that means that >> no HTTP/2.0 browser will send more than 32 bytes, and no website >> will support HTTP/2.0 until they can do their job with just 32 bytes >> of User-Agent. >> >> HTTP/2.0 transition is a unique chance for getting this monster >> under control, we should not waste it. > > > It seems more likely that the end result of this would just be that websites > won't support HTTP/2.0.
Received on Friday, 13 September 2013 22:42:33 UTC