4 ms·
Just like they admitted that XHTML 2 was a mistake and scraped it, I feel they should do the same with this nonsense. Nothing about spdy or http2.0 sparks any
by josteink 12y ago
Just like they admitted that XHTML 2 was a mistake and scraped it, I feel they should do the same with this nonsense.
Nothing about spdy or http2.0 sparks any sort of confidence with regard to proper robust protocol design, keeping things simple nor properly separating concerns.
- haberman 12y agoIt's funny that you mention XHTML 2, because I think it demonstrates the opposite of what you are arguing. XHTML 2 is a lot more like what PHK is proposing: an attempt to "rethink" HTML, come up with something simpler, revolutionary rather than evolutionary, "The Right Thing." It was an attempt to reinvent the space from first principles, and had lots of ideas that were theoretically good but unproven at large scale. When that went nowhere, the world settled on HTML5: evolutionary, incremental, and based on standardizing existing practice. Much less sexy, but more useful in practice. There is a time and a place for bold new ideas, but a standards body designing v2 of a protocol isn't it. Standards are for codifying proven ideas. When standards bodies try to innovate you end up with XHTML, VRML, P3P, SPARQL, etc.
- dragonwriter 12y ago> Just like they admitted that XHTML 2 was a mistake and scraped it But "they" (the W3C) didn't do that when people were just complaining about issues with the XHTML 2.0 approach, they did it after a competing approach was developed via an extensive, multi-year process through an outside group (WHATWG), and even then only that after a short period when both approaches were the focus of official W3C working groups. They didn't adopt a "this is limited, lets throw it away and start over" approach as the original article here calls for with regard to HTTP/2.0.