2 ms·
"maintain 2 protocols" - actually, yes, I do expect browser vendors to maintain compatibility with HTTP 1.0, 1.1, 1.2 and 2.0+. By the way, you might be interes
by lstamour 13y ago
"maintain 2 protocols" - actually, yes, I do expect browser vendors to maintain compatibility with HTTP 1.0, 1.1, 1.2 and 2.0+. By the way, you might be interested in 1.2: http://www.infoq.com/news/2011/04/http-1.2-released http://www.infoq.com/news/2011/04/http-1.2-released
The way I see it, we can have our cake, both flavours. Why make someone remember different URLs? "http://" http://" is too entrenched for when people type it in, and I'd rather not worry about browsers trying to sniff out faster protocols as they currently do with SPDY. Better to make it a version number, even if you personally never use it.
- teddyh 13y agoHTTP 1.2 is an April fools joke.
- lstamour 13y agoSigh. And I knew that. Just not at 2am. (Though the way I phrased it, maybe it could slip by as an intentional link...) Thanks for pointing this out to my less tired self and anyone else who stumbles upon this thread. It's perhaps worth pointing out that HTTP 2.0 then is not an April Fools joke :D (1.0 and 1.1 was all I knew, but Google distracted me in to thinking it was real again with those dang uncorrected news articles...)