- From: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:22:09 -0600
- 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