Re: on/about a stream, frame ordering

Oh, forgot one thing:

There is no harm in us using "on" and "about" when talking about these
things as a bit of a shorthand, as long as it doesn't become
exclusionary in any way.

On 21 October 2013 11:54, Martin Thomson <> wrote:
> On 21 October 2013 11:41, William Chan (陈智昌) <> wrote:
>> I feel like we've discussed this in the interim meetings, but I don't see
>> any language about this in the spec. I see many references to "on a stream",
>> but I can't find anything "about a stream". Is this language we plan to
>> formalize in the spec?
> I don't know if we ever formally discussed this, but there were a
> number of offline discussions.  I concluded (with Jeff's help) that -
> at least for specification text - there was no strong need to invent a
> nomenclature around this.  What the draft does is define a stream in
> terms of HEADERS and DATA frames:
> "A "stream" is an independent, bi-directional sequence of HEADERS and
> DATA frames exchanged between the client and server within an HTTP/2.0
> connection."
> On the whole, the draft is explicit about the use of each individual
> frame type (when, where, how, etc...), which avoids the need for a
> label like that.  Yes, that approach doesn't scale, but the hope is
> that there isn't any need to scale to any real extent.

Received on Monday, 21 October 2013 18:55:59 UTC