4 ms·

Going to binary seems kind of silly at this point. HTML is text. Javascript is text. XML is text. JSON is text. SVG is text. CSS is text. Is it really wor

Going to binary seems kind of silly at this point. HTML is text. Javascript is text. XML is text. JSON is text. SVG is text. CSS is text. Is it really worth the complication to save a few bytes on HTTP headers when you're just going to shovel out inefficient text data in most cases anyway? I don't understand why they're trying to shove this down everybody's throat as a new version of HTTP. There are a ton of ports besides 80. The better thing to do, IMO, would be to make a new protocol on some other port and add it to their browsers.

josteink 13y ago
According to the shills employed by or rooting for Google, here on HN and elsewhere on the internet, it's not silly: It is paramount. See, it allows the request for www.google.com, including all of Google's tracking cookies, to fit inside one TCP-frame, causing a 5ms improvement in load time, and Google has evidence that this means they make more money. Never mind the open, exploratory nature of the internet and how text-based protocols was what made the internet into what it is today. We're going to throw away all that which the internet has taught us about that because Google says we should. This thing is fucked up beyond belief. Edit: found a link to the IETF discussion about this: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013JanMar/0254.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013JanMar/... It admits in plain sight that the only thing they care about with HTTP 2.0 is solving Google's massive-scale issues at the cost of everyone else: > I finally admitted it was a dead end. At the moment the challenges consist in feeding requests as fast as possible over high latency connections and processing them as fast as possible on load balancers A good, open, self-documenting protocol didn't suit Google, so let's throw it away. It's a "dead end", after all. Jesus christ these people need a bitch-slapping. More emails on the subject can be found here: http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/search?keywords=&hdr-1-name=subject&hdr-1-query=The+use+of+binary+data+in+any+part+of+HTTP+2.0+is+not+good&index-grp=Public_FULL&index-type=t&type-index=ietf-http-wg http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/search?keywords=&hdr-1-...

josteink 13y ago

According to the shills employed by or rooting for Google, here on HN and elsewhere on the internet, it's not silly: It is paramount. See, it allows the request for www.google.com, including all of Google's tracking cookies, to fit inside one TCP-frame, causing a 5ms improvement in load time, and Google has evidence that this means they make more money. Never mind the open, exploratory nature of the internet and how text-based protocols was what made the internet into what it is today. We're going to throw away all that which the internet has taught us about that because Google says we should. This thing is fucked up beyond belief. Edit: found a link to the IETF discussion about this: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013JanMar/0254.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013JanMar/... It admits in plain sight that the only thing they care about with HTTP 2.0 is solving Google's massive-scale issues at the cost of everyone else: > I finally admitted it was a dead end. At the moment the challenges consist in feeding requests as fast as possible over high latency connections and processing them as fast as possible on load balancers A good, open, self-documenting protocol didn't suit Google, so let's throw it away. It's a "dead end", after all. Jesus christ these people need a bitch-slapping. More emails on the subject can be found here: http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/search?keywords=&hdr-1-name=subject&hdr-1-query=The+use+of+binary+data+in+any+part+of+HTTP+2.0+is+not+good&index-grp=Public_FULL&index-type=t&type-index=ietf-http-wg http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/search?keywords=&hdr-1-...