5 ms·

We could call it FTP! In all seriousness, HTTP is a good example of scope creep. The type and volume of content sent in a typical session is far different than

We could call it FTP! In all seriousness, HTTP is a good example of scope creep. The type and volume of content sent in a typical session is far different than what was common a decade ago.

parasubvert 13y ago
Nonsense. HTTP is a good example of an enduring protocol design, under an enduring architecture (The Web combination of URI+MIME+HTTP). As the payloads have changed, it has evolved very little. HTTP/2.0 is an optimization to this architecture. It's unlikely it will ever fully replace HTTP/1.0. In 2003, the type of content was exactly the same: HTML, Images, CSS, JavaScript, Audio and Video. The formats weren't all that different. Nowadays the main difference is you see a lot more JSON and/or XML (mostly RSS). In 1995-1996, the formats and codecs were a bit more primitive, and the net was smaller, but it was the same sort of content: AVIs, MOVs, GIFs, JPGs, HTML, and early 1.0 JavaScript. HTTP+URI is also generally a much better protocol for transferring state than FTP. It's both simpler AND more general.
- AnIrishDuck 13y ago
  I was joking about FTP. I was trying to say that HTTP has stood the test of time much better, despite the fact that what we have asked of it has changed quite a bit. > In 1995-1996, the formats and codecs were a bit more primitive, and the net was smaller, but it was the same sort of content: AVIs, MOVs, GIFs, JPGs, HTML, and early 1.0 JavaScript. There is a difference in magnitude between the present day web session and the typical 1995 one. The number of resources needed to properly render many pages is much, much larger. HTTP 1.0 and 1.1 simply weren't designed with this requirement in mind. They still do a pretty good job handling it, but it's not hard to argue that a protocol designed around improving parallelism will have better performance characteristics.
  - parasubvert 13y ago
    > I was joking about FTP. Sorry then :) > There is a difference in magnitude between the present day web session and the typical 1995 one. I agree with that, just misinterpreted your post as a pile on against HTTP. Certainly HTTP/2.0 and SPDY are necessary to keep up with the complexity of today's pages.

We could call it FTP! In all seriousness, HTTP is a good example of scope creep. The type and volume of content sent in a typical session is far different than what was common a decade ago.

parasubvert 13y ago

Nonsense. HTTP is a good example of an enduring protocol design, under an enduring architecture (The Web combination of URI+MIME+HTTP). As the payloads have changed, it has evolved very little. HTTP/2.0 is an optimization to this architecture. It's unlikely it will ever fully replace HTTP/1.0. In 2003, the type of content was exactly the same: HTML, Images, CSS, JavaScript, Audio and Video. The formats weren't all that different. Nowadays the main difference is you see a lot more JSON and/or XML (mostly RSS). In 1995-1996, the formats and codecs were a bit more primitive, and the net was smaller, but it was the same sort of content: AVIs, MOVs, GIFs, JPGs, HTML, and early 1.0 JavaScript. HTTP+URI is also generally a much better protocol for transferring state than FTP. It's both simpler AND more general.

AnIrishDuck 13y ago
I was joking about FTP. I was trying to say that HTTP has stood the test of time much better, despite the fact that what we have asked of it has changed quite a bit. > In 1995-1996, the formats and codecs were a bit more primitive, and the net was smaller, but it was the same sort of content: AVIs, MOVs, GIFs, JPGs, HTML, and early 1.0 JavaScript. There is a difference in magnitude between the present day web session and the typical 1995 one. The number of resources needed to properly render many pages is much, much larger. HTTP 1.0 and 1.1 simply weren't designed with this requirement in mind. They still do a pretty good job handling it, but it's not hard to argue that a protocol designed around improving parallelism will have better performance characteristics.
- parasubvert 13y ago
  > I was joking about FTP. Sorry then :) > There is a difference in magnitude between the present day web session and the typical 1995 one. I agree with that, just misinterpreted your post as a pile on against HTTP. Certainly HTTP/2.0 and SPDY are necessary to keep up with the complexity of today's pages.