[venaoy]

> The linked benchmark is flawed, as dlubarov noted above.

No, I already replied to him. You and him should spend some time looking at the Chrome network console visiting some of the top500 sites. It is very common for sites to be exactly like that: tons of small requests for small resources.

[striking]

Okay. Fair enough. I concede that efficiency is important and that SPDY / HTTP/2 can improve upon it. But I don't believe that this is worth the hype because the exposed featureset is otherwise tiny. Efficiency is cool, yes, but I'm personally waiting until HTTP/3 fixes the other wrong things with the Internet before I implement anything. I think the amount of effort that goes into this is not worth the result. Why include tons of small resources on your page if they're not necessary? Why revamp a protocol entirely if all you have to do is stop including tons of small resources?

[venaoy]

> Okay. Fair enough. I concede that efficiency is important and that SPDY / HTTP/2 can improve upon it.

Great, I appreciate you recognize this.

> Why include tons of small resources on your page if they're not necessary?

But it _is_ necessary. In every single of the examples I gave in my reply to dlubarov, it is necessary:

- There are 100+ small images, icons, etc and all are displayed on the nytimes.com homepage.

- All of the thumbnail pictures of ebay items on a listing are displayed to the user.

- The 50+ maps tiles downloaded when browsing Google Maps are all necessary.

- Etc

You seem to fail to realize that in 2015, not every web page can be dumbed down to a blob of static HTML and no more than 2-3 images. The modern web is complex. We needed a protocol that can serve it efficiently.

[enneff]

It's not just web _pages_, either. Many people spend their days working in web applications, which HTTP/2 helps tremendously.