[tor_user]

have any of you geniuses figured out this will break websites for tor users yet?

[zmanian]

Tor doesn't support UDP so no HTTP/3 but one would expect most services would be available for the foreseeable future over HTTP/2 as well.

[tor_user]

like websites without javascript?

[Dylan16807]

Working without javascript requires development time. Running old versions of HTTP doesn't. Version 1.1 is going to be fully supported for a long time.

[tor_user]

Working without javascript requires money. Running old versions of HTTP requires ????.

[penagwin]

Running old versions of HTTP requires nothing because people will need to support legacy devices for a long time, and it's obviously already implemented in all major components (Servers, CDNs, Clients, etc.)

[tor_user]

???? != nothing.

Why run HTTP/3 if HTTP/1 costs nothing?

Where I work legacy gets dropped sooner rather than later.

I hope this bombs, er tanks.

[Dylan16807]

The first one requires money be spent on every site.

The second one requires that the feature be maintained in major web servers. Which it will be. On a per-site basis, the developer needs to do nothing.

[tor_user]

Still not getting it. Every site is hosted. The hosting company needs to spend money on HTTP/2, and be allowed to use it. The networks need to allow TCP through. All the steps down to the transport layer now require legacy maintenance.

Lots of things need to happen for HTTP/2 to 'stay alive'.

Your use of the future tense does not convince me.

[jetzzz]

Is there anything that prevents Tor from supporting this protocol?

[lucb1e]

Downvoted because of the "you geniuses". You're making a fair point that I hadn't thought of yet (I'm also a fan of Tor), but the delivery method is just plain rude.

[tor_user]

The oppressed people of the world salute your endeavours.