- From: Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>
- Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 14:59:53 -0500
- To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Cc: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
(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 http://www.la-grange.net/karl/
Received on Sunday, 17 November 2013 20:00:13 UTC