W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2013

Re: HTTP 2.0: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-04

From: Appelquist Daniel (UK) <Daniel.Appelquist@telefonica.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 08:38:33 +0100
To: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CE02C72F.1BBED%daniel.appelquist@telefonica.com>

On 10/07/2013 04:07, "Noah Mendelsohn" <nrm@arcanedomain.com> wrote:

>A new draft of HTTP 2.0 is available at [1]. Since this is a significant
>change to one of the three "pillars" or Web architecture, it seems to me
>that the TAG should at least study this in detail.
>
>Noah
>
>[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-04

>

Thanks for posting this, Noah! I also note some raucous discussion on this
going on here:

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/07/09/1455200/http-20-will-be-a-binary-pr

otocol

And an interesting post here by Poul-Hennings Kamp (@bsdphk):

https://www.varnish-cache.org/docs/trunk/phk/http20.html


@Yves - as you've been closest to this work do you think you could post
your thoughts?  What are the key differences between HTTP 1.1 and HTTP 2.0
that we ought to be focusing on from a Web Architecture perspective.  I
will note that the TAG held a session on SPDY in 2011 with Mike Belshe:

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/11/04-minutes.html#item01


It's somewhat instructive reading those minutes, particularly about how
wide-spready deployment of SPDY might change the way Web Applications are
architected deployed.  To what extent has the SPDY work made it into HTTP
2.0?

Is there meaningful review we could do of the HTTP 2.0 work in the context
of AWWW 2.0, capability URLs, or the JavaScript-related work?  What
assumptions about the use of HTTP are we making in any of this work that
could potentially be impacted by HTTP 2.0?

Dan

Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2013 07:39:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:58 UTC