- From: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
- Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 21:15:07 +0000
- To: "bizzbyster@gmail.com" <bizzbyster@gmail.com>
- CC: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Nov 3, 2013, at 11:56 AM, bizzbyster@gmail.com wrote: > Okay that makes sense. > > But I do have trouble seeing HTTP2 obsoleting HTTP1.1 since for so many purposes it is a step sideways. But let's see how it goes. Hi, Peter I understand what you mean by "sideways", but why is that an obstacle for HTTP/2 replacing HTTP/1.1 ? I could argue that the extra stuff in HTTP/1.0 and HTTP/1.1 are also not quite needed for WGET, and yet that tools did implement HTTP/1.1. Is there some use case where HTTP/2 is inferior? I realize that a minimal implementation is more complicated than a minimal implementation of HTTP/1. But assuming you have both an HTTP/2 and an HTTP/1 implementation, is there a reason to use the HTTP/1 in any case? Yoav
Received on Sunday, 3 November 2013 21:15:58 UTC