Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem

"Poul-Henning Kamp" wrote:
> We have two (or more ?) major-ish browsers nixing HTTP/1 upgrade.
> We have a number of proxies (involved in about 30-50% of all HTTP1
> content delivery) nixing CONTINUATION and we have a lot of webmasters
> who have yet to see any evidence that adding HTTP/2 support would
> ever be worth their while.


> And we have talk about HTTP/3.0 before HTTP/2.0 even got to Last
> Rites.

+1, I wouldn't be re-participating here if it weren't for the "we'll
get it right in HTTP/3" mantra, a major indicator of problems with
HTTP/2 in general, leading me to some of the same specifics PHK

I'd make technical arguments (which I'm certainly capable of if I
thought it worthwhile) if I believed the issues with this protocol
were being resolved based on what's best for the Web. Which I don't,
leading me to frowned-upon political discussion about motives.

> Maybe the mistake was to rename SPDY ?
> If this draft had been named SPDY and with a stated goal of "giving
> a better user experience" at a subset of large web-properties at
> the expense of interoperability with HTTP/1, then it would be a
> very fine draft indeed, because most people could just ignore it and
> firewalls and content-filters could just block it and force
> fall-back to HTTP/1.0.
> But naming it HTTP/2.0 rightfully raises the expectations a LOT,
> and the talk about HTTP/3 already now makes it painfully obvious
> that those expectations are not even close to being been met.



Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 09:43:12 UTC