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

Re: A proposal

From: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:22:09 -0600
Message-ID: <CACuKZqHb4UYTqffiAyE7duHAKg6SW8ejMNKgbd1yWssd_fA8Rw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
> In message <CACuKZqHKjpvgu=TOGsG6FVKtVnJnom1pn8FnuWit9XraW-JM-w@mail.gmail.com>
> , Zhong Yu writes:
>>If a URL is http://something, it better means that the document can be
>>retrieved by HTTP/1 on clear TCP. If that assumption is broken, a lot
>>of software will be broken.
> No, it means "fetch this with HTTP", it doesn't say "HTTP/1" anywhere
> and if the user-agent determines that it can be fetched better with
> HTTP/2 on port 100, then that's just fine.

There are a lot of existing programs, other than the few leading
browsers, that interpret "http://" URLs that way. Your proposal will
break them.

> Now, if a port number is specified, things get more hairy, and that
> could be documented as a way to insist on a particular HTTP version
> if my proposal is adopted.
> Poul-Henning
> --
> Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
> phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
> FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
> Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Sunday, 17 November 2013 21:22:36 UTC

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