- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 08:21:46 +0100
- To: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Cc: Rob Trace <Rob.Trace@microsoft.com>, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, Tao Effect <contact@taoeffect.com>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 04:07:07PM +0900, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote: > If I Rob this correctly, this may mean that a future version of IE will > implement HTTP 2.0 without encryption for http: URIs. > > Next let's say that Apache 3.0 implements HTTP 2.0 which can be > configured to run without encryption (after all, Apache is used in > internal contexts, too). > > What's the chance of this *not* leaking out into the open internet and > forcing other browser vendors to also allow HTTP 2.0 for http: URIs > without encryption? After all, experience has shown that users quickly > abandon a browser that doesn't work for some websites, and that browser > vendors know about this and try to avoid it. And so what ? It's not a problem. Some browsers will likely implement it at least with a config option that's disabled by default, and these browsers will be the ones picked by developers during their tests, because developers pick the browser that makes their life easier. Willy
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2013 07:22:24 UTC