- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 14:07:59 +1100
- To: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi Matthew, On 20/11/2013, at 12:53 PM, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au> wrote: > I explicitly propose the status quo: leave any recommendation (normative or otherwise) out of the base HTTP/2.0 spec. Instead I suggest we/you/someone create a separate (informational?) document describing these issues. > > At the least, I would imagine the base spec to be (hopefully) current and useful for decades, whereas what various browsers do or don't support, or even what browsers exist or matter in the market, might be a bit more transient; thus any documentation that depends on them should be equally versatile. Updating or obsoleting an informational RFC would be a lot easier than keeping a "that's *so* 2013" social reference in the HTTP/2.0 spec, and possibly pointing out to people that it, in fact, no longer applies, or whatever. So, to be clear, you'd be OK with a separate Informational RFC called something like "HTTP/2.0 for Web Browsers" or "HTTP/2.0 for the Open Web" or similar, even if that spec constrained (or eliminated) using HTTP/2.0 for http:// URLs? Thanks, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2013 03:08:20 UTC