- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 20:29:40 +0000
- To: Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>
- cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "William Chan (ιζΊζ)" <willchan@chromium.org>
In message <etPan.53b45e61.19495cff.47c6@corymbp.local>, Cory Benfield writes: >On 1 July 2014 at 22:12:52, William Chan (=E9=99=88=E6=99=BA=E6=98=8C) (w= >Should we be asking Chrome and FF to go against what they'd clearly >like to do and to implement plaintext Upgrade ? I understand they have made that concious decision because they want to improve encrypted connections over unencrypted ones, in order to futher their preferred political agenda in this area. Doing so they run the risk that somebody else deploys HTTP/2-plaintext in competing browsers and by offering a better and faster user experience wins market and mindshare. I admire people who are willing to stand up put their bacon in the pan for their principle. For that reason alone I'm not going to ask or beg them to change their minds. The interesting question therefore is if HTTP/2-plaintext can "improve the user experience" of porn over HTTP/1. If yes, FF and Chrome will surely change their mind, rather than conceede that market to IIS. If no, HTTP/2 wasn't a very good protocol to begin with, was it ? Poul-Henning -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 20:30:04 UTC