On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> And web servers also need to have an option to operate HTTP/2.0 on
> plain TCP to make dev's life easier. It's difficult to see why
> browsers/servers would risk to alienate developers. So most browsers
> and servers would end up with the capability of talking HTTP/2.0 over
> TCP.
>
>
Just to be clear, I'm a browser vendor speaking here, representing my own
personal views, but those generally align with the Chromium project. And
no, we don't have plans to support HTTP/2.0 in the clear. Firefox
developers like Pat have said similar things. So you're simply factually
wrong in your assertion about browsers.
>
> >
> > Willy
> >
> >
>
>