|
|
|
|
|
|
by wmf
4144 days ago
|
|
|
HTTP/2 may actually help PHK get what he wants sooner. Proposing to make major syntax and semantic changes would have turned HTTP/2 into an extremely contentious 10-year project. Splitting that into more manageable chunks (syntax in HTTP/2, semantics in HTTP/3), combined with the iterative process that was used to evolve SPDY into HTTP/2, may be more tractable. Of course, no process will will help you if everyone disagrees with your proposals. |
|
|
Sounds great!
Just one question: How many versions of the (now flabagasteringly complex) HTTP-protocol will I need to support in my application and libraries? Because as we all know, once deployed on the internet, something will never be updated and will need to be supported forever, meaning you can never obsolete that HTTP/1.1 and /2.0 code.
HTTP/1.1 was a fantastic protocol in that it survived for almost 2 decades unchanged. Here we have HTTP/2.0 and people are already talking about what we will need to add to HTTP/3.0.
If HTTP is going to end up being the new MSIE, we can only blame ourselves because we allowed Google to use its dominance to push a protocol the internet didn't need.