3 ms·
There was another article on here a week or two ago effectively blasting the http/2.0 wg for doing stupid things. I think it was the "HTTP 308 incompetence expe
by gnoway 13y ago
There was another article on here a week or two ago effectively blasting the http/2.0 wg for doing stupid things. I think it was the "HTTP 308 incompetence expected" article.
Now this. I'm beginning to wonder if I want anything to do with HTTP/2.0.
- hobohacker 13y agoPerhaps you should look at the Hacker News comments on that thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7249193 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7249193. Notably, my comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7249560 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7249560 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7249869 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7249869. Basically, the author is wrong.
- Lukasa 13y agoBoth this article and that one were impressively alarmist. Speaking as someone who has implemented a HTTP/2.0 client stack it's really nothing like as bad as either of these articles makes out. For once, I invite you to fully read the comments on this post and the one you're referring to. Or, alternatively, take a read of the draft RFCs and the WG mailing list, which is totally open.