- From: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 22:14:18 -0500
- To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Um, with all due respect HTTP/1.1 is a Proposed Standard with a lot of years of deployment, while HTTP/2.0 is *almost* a Draft Standard. Why are we talking about "a deprecated 1.x"? > On Feb 10, 2015, at 9:31 PM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote: > > On 11/02/2015 2:27 p.m., Greg Wilkins wrote: >> Amos, >> >> that is a good way of doing it - more or less like an upgrade, but without >> the complexity of having to inject the settings frame and HTTP/1 request >> into the server. While I hear what Mark says about caution, I really >> don't see a great risk here and thus will look at supporting it also. > > I agree with Mark completely about the 2.0 -> 1.1 transition being > dangerous. 1.1 has a scary amount of legacy tolerances and gaps where > nastiness can squeeze through. > > Beyond safety is the other issue of promoting 2.0 at every opportunity > while remaining compatible with a deprecated 1.x. > > Amos > > _________________________________________________________ Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2015 03:14:49 UTC