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