2 ms·

PHK has always been skeptical of HTTP/2 & SPDY He wants radical change in the protocol but when given the opportunity submitted a (by his own admission) half b

PHK has always been skeptical of HTTP/2 & SPDY He wants radical change in the protocol but when given the opportunity submitted a (by his own admission) half baked proposal - there's also the question of what a protocol like HTTP/2 means for his product. Although HTTP/2 started from SPDY it has evolved, and in different ways e.g. see the framing comments from the thread the OP links to. We need a better protocol for the web now, yes we could wait around longer for more discussion but where did that get us with HTTP/1.1 - I'd be quite happy if IETF had just adopted SPDY lock, stock and barrel (and no I don't work for Google)

stormbrew 12y ago
I'm aware that he's always been skeptical, I saw his posts as my own excitement over the idea of HTTP/2.0 died on the vine from being subscribed to the WG mailing list. There has never and will never be a point in time where we don't need "a better protocol for the web now." The issue is that canonization was unnecessary, adoption of spdy has been progressing fine without it. And HTTP/2 diverging significantly from spdy does not inspire confidence, either. Rather it just reminds of a famous xkcd [1]and again begs the question of whether trying to turn spdy into http/2 even manages to achieve any of the goals the process was setting out for. The whole thing just seems like a big fat SNAFU. [1] http://xkcd.com/927/ http://xkcd.com/927/