[derefr]

The real problem, I think, will be moving to "idiomatic" HTTP2-centric design (lots of little resources, relying on parallel chunked delivery and server-suggested retrieval) while still keeping HTTP/1.1 clients fast.

I'm betting there will come a polyfill to make HTTP/2 servers able to deliver content to HTTP/1.1-but-HTML5 web browsers in an HTTP/2-idiomatic way—perhaps, for example, delivering the originally-requested page over HTTP/1.1 but having everything else delivered in HTTP2-ish chunks over a websocket.

[mattmanser]

Now that all of the browsers have moved to an auto update model and the only ones that haven't are on mobiles that have short lifespans, that's really only going to be important to the big players for about a year or two.

Or maybe I'm overly optimistic!

[josteink]

Think all software written for all devices involving every single embedded thingie with a webclient reporting in or polling data everywhere: Every ATM, every POS device, every IOT-device made yet and everyone to be made in the future. Every little gadget with a network stack ever made.

And you're telling me all of those will have an updated HTTP-stack within 2 years?

You're not being "overly optimistic", you're being tragically unrealistic.

Like every other published internet-standard, HTTP/1.0 and HTTP/1.1 will be here until the end of the internet. Sadly the clusterfuck that is HTTP/2.0 will too now.

The people talking about HTTP/3.0 already really seems to have missed this bit. (They're talking about 3.0 because HTTP/2.0 didn't really solve the problems we have with HTTP/1.1, but nevermind that, Google steam-rolled this one through and we want to be trendy)

The question is now: How many HTTP-stacks do you want to support? Is 2 OK? 3? 4? When do you say enough is enough?

[mattmanser]

You're missing the point. For all of them ut doesn't matter if my consumer website serves multiple assets.

That's what I'm talking about.

[josteink]

Our point is that some people are treating this internet-protocol with a lifetime of decades like it was this week's update of Chrome.

It isn't. And it needs to be treated differently.

[jimktrains2]

> The people talking about HTTP/3.0 already really seems to have missed this bit. (They're talking about 3.0 because HTTP/2.0 didn't really solve the problems we have with HTTP/1.1, but nevermind that, Google steam-rolled this one through and we want to be trendy)

Exactly! There are more important problems to solve, page load time isn't one of them. My list includes:

* Better authentication

* More secure caching

* Improved ability to download large files

* Better methods to find alternate downloads locations

* Making each request contain less information about the sender

* Improved Metadata

I brain-dump a bit here: https://github.com/jimktrains/http_ng

EDIT: Formatting

[MrBuddyCasino]

I'm afraid you are - while things have improved for the reasons you outlined, corporate IT still going to be a major party pooper.