W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2013

Re: A proposal

From: Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 14:59:53 -0500
Cc: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E39FB58F-25BD-4DA0-AE1C-2F68F11D351A@la-grange.net>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
(If I understood the initial proposal.)

Le 17 nov. 2013 à 14:40, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> a écrit :
> Then don't.  This approach does not require you to do anything you don't want to do.  It just says that if you want plaintext http/2 you can have it.

Site A (http2-enc) is making a link to site B (http2-plain). How the author of site A is supposed to know that site B is using a different HTTP scheme?

So the new list of URIs schemes will be (according to the proposal)

http://  -> http 1.1 (plain text)
https:// -> http 1.1 (secure)
http://  -> http 2.0 (secure)
http2:// -> http 2.0 (plain text)

Is it that? I can see on the author side more headaches. Or we effectively give up on http and write things like <a href="//example.org/foo">blah</a> (which might be a good idea).

Karl Dubost
Received on Sunday, 17 November 2013 20:00:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:20 UTC