4 ms·
By that argument, they should get cracking on HTTP/3 already. :) Even though HTTP/2 is usable, adoption is still low (last I checked it was around 25%), and an
by ilovecaching 8y ago
By that argument, they should get cracking on HTTP/3 already. :)
Even though HTTP/2 is usable, adoption is still low (last I checked it was around 25%), and any server that supports 2 needs to support 1 for backwards compatability. It's also more complicated to implement, so I can see why you'd want to start with HTTP/1.
- stock_toaster 8y agoMaybe they can just skip 2 and go straight to 3! :P
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- KirinDave 8y agoHTTP/2 has support on over 90% on caniuse, which is a decent approximation of what most folks selling products here will see. The browsers that don't support it aren't the sort we really care that much about anyways unless we're building a bank or something, in which case suffering is your mandate anyways. As for client libraries for APIs, it's a non-issue. There's plenty of flexibility on backends. I'm not saying you'd skip "HTTP/1" but I certainly wouldn't put a lot of effort into it.