> If every HTTP/2 server is also an HTTP/1.1 server offering the same content then there is no practical need to distinguish the protocols. But not ever HTTP/1

> If every HTTP/2 server is also an HTTP/1.1 server offering the same content then there is no practical need to distinguish the protocols. But not ever HTTP/1.1 server will be an HTTP/2 server; that's my point. > As to URL-hiding, you know that's controversial, and for good reason. I know; I hat it. I brought it up because obviously most people don't seem to care enough about it that we should overload a schema specifier for the sake of aestetics that don't matter. > More importantly, that's not the only place that people use links. Every time they share one via email, for example. Every time they type one in from a magazine or the side of a bus or a flyer. Every time they cite one in a paper. OK? some people cite ftp links. I'm not seeing your point. > Forcing those people suddenly include a protocol distinction that is meaningless to them and unimportant to the server involved would be a pointless waste. So we shouldn't use ftp:// or smb:// anymore? I don't get your point, because people are already used to non-http schemas. > HTTP/2 is purely an under-the-hood improvement. I mean you could say the same thing if all your assets were served over ftp and the browser rendered them as it does http. HTTP/2 is _fundamentally_ different than HTTP/1.1.