- From: Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management) <robby.simpson@ge.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 15:09:44 +0000
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
- CC: "Nottingham, Mark" <mnotting@akamai.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 9/29/14, 4:46 AM, "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: >-------- >In message <alpine.DEB.2.00.1409291020520.23213@tvnag.unkk.fr>, Daniel >Stenberg > writes: > >>I think we should put this suggestion in the queue of things to do with >>the >>binary format if we for some reason are lead into changing the format >>for some >>other and more important reason. I don't think these stated motivations >>are >>enough to (yet again) break the binary format. > >I continually amazes me that backwards compatibility with a handful >of prototype implementations is used as an argument against improving >the successor to the worlds most widely used protocol. +1 I'm implementing HTTP/2 because I believe it will be successful, widely used, efficient, and long-lasting. At this stage, if there are changes that can be made to increase those qualities, I will _gladly_ update my implementation. If someone is implementing a draft, they should be willing to update that implementation until the standard is finalized. Otherwise, they should wait to implement. Granted, I haven't been actively participating from the beginning and may be missing out on the fatigue, but my experience thus far has been resistance to any real change. To me ironic, since I waited this long to implement as I knew I only had so many cycles..
Received on Monday, 29 September 2014 15:10:21 UTC