W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: HTTP/2 in examples

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 23:23:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbfpiY+eo0ESf-QjcbCvQS_xo2URDkpzQ8dnJm0EgqdNcQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Using the http/1.1 syntax for http/2 won't work unless you're crystal clear
that the example is an abstract representation as opposed to on the wire
syntax. Even still, you'll have people who will screw it up. My
recommendation is to use a clearly different syntax that shows the framing.
That way, it'll be absolutely certain what is being shown in the example.

- James
On May 11, 2014 11:10 PM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> Hi there.
> It just occurred to me that by switching to a non-textual message format,
> we lost a canonical way to represent messages in examples.
> I wouldn't be surprised it people start using "HTTP/2" as protocol name in
> messages using the 1.1 format. Is this a problem? Do we need to make a
> recommendation?
> Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 12 May 2014 06:23:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:30 UTC