> Or you just run two servers (or a single server that speaks both), you know, like you'll have to for the next 30 years anyway. The point is not that origin s

> Or you just run two servers (or a single server that speaks both), you know, like you'll have to for the next 30 years anyway. The point is not that origin servers need to be upgraded, it's that clients and intermediaries should not be forced to upgrade. That means the actual content of the web (HTML pages) should not require revision to support the wire protocol upgrade, especially considering HTTP has an upgrade mechanism already built in. There's almost no benefit that I can see to require a new scheme, and tremendous downside. > That first part, before the colon, is a protocol descriptor. It would be perfectly reasonable to change the protocol descriptor. Actually, if you look at the specs, the first part is a scheme identifier, not a protocol identifier. There's a big difference. Schemes point you here: http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/uri-schemes.xhtml http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/uri-schemes.xhtm... And then you look up the spec for how to interpret and/or resolve the rest of the URI. That may or may not involve a mapping to a wire protocol (e.g. the "about" scheme, or the "geo" scheme).