Re: JSON headers

In message <>, Mike Bishop writes:

>The conclusion I reached while writing my draft on the semantic vs. mapping
>layer was fundamentally that we didn't change the semantic layer in HTTP/2,
>and consequently don't really have a versioning scheme for it right now.
>Thanks for proposing one.  Unfortunately, it fundamentally breaks the promise
>we just restated in RFC 7230:  "The interpretation of a header field does not
>change between minor versions of the same major HTTP version [...]

I am aware of that.

I am also aware that the major problems people have with HTTP are
not the transport layer, although that causes plenty of grief, but
the semantic layer we do not have.

Some years ago I realized that there is a finite amount of code to
be backwards-compatible with, and that this amount of code by its
nature will become smaller and smaller with passing time.

Looking the other way, there is a potentially infinite amount of
code which has not yet been written, and there will be more and
more of it as time goes by.

The obvious conclusion is that being compatible with the future is
far more important than being compatible with the past.

I am therefore perfectly willing to write in a RFC:

   "That promise in RFC7230?  We changed our mind"

If that can make the future a better place...

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 Friday, 8 July 2016 21:58:54 UTC