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

Re: I revised the pro/contra document

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 21:41:13 -0800
Message-ID: <CABP7Rbez+81jWHbhQ6cgGdXnvNfY2VCBcmGQiMtw2B5h6X1h9g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Cc: Alexandre Anzala-Yamajako <anzalaya@gmail.com>, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Yes, but the "they can just use 1.1" argument is being used consistently to
justify design choices for 2.0. That's just wrong.
On Nov 23, 2013 9:36 PM, "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:

> 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 05:41:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:39 UTC