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

Re: I revised the pro/contra document

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 21:33:42 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHBU6iutBMMvzJw0q72GY3i5bXkAL5MRtv=MAOGEA59QG44qBg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
Cc: Alexandre Anzala-Yamajako <anzalaya@gmail.com>, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
Unconvinced. Life is full of trade-offs. Enhancing HTTP/2's privacy story
is not without costs. When balancing costs and benefits, it's reasonable to
consider that the costs may be mitigated by the continuing availability of
HTTP/1.1. It's not axiomatic that HTTP/2 has to be the single best choice
in all situations, in order to be a success.
On Nov 23, 2013 8:40 PM, "Matthew Kerwin" <matthew@kerwin.net.au> wrote:

> On 24 November 2013 11:12, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com> wrote:
>>  (that can still use HTTP/1.1 if they want to!)
> I have to chime in here.  I keep seeing this point mentioned on the list.
>  This is not a valid counterpoint, or a justification for adding something
> to HTTP/2, or an excuse for ignoring someone's use-case for HTTP.  If
> anybody chooses HTTP/1.1 over HTTP/2 for _any reason_ other than laziness
> or stubborn change aversion, then HTTP/2 has failed in its primary purpose.
> --
>   Matthew Kerwin
>   http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/
Received on Sunday, 24 November 2013 05:34:09 UTC

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