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