3 ms·

Or a great choice if you want to shoehorn your wished spec into reality?

• pluma 12y ago
  Maybe the W3C didn't want a repeat of what happened with XHTML2.
  • aroch 12y ago
    If memory serves there were a number of issues with XHTML2, chief among them being it didn't serve the original intent of XHTML very well. HTTP/2 has good meaning but some of the deign choices were made because Google wanted them not because they were necessarily best (at least from my understanding as an interested spectator).
    • pas 12y ago
      Could you expand on that? Is there a list of these features, or at least a blogpost that interested parties could read to quickly get up to speed with the special interest influences currently observable in the spec?
      • jacquesm 12y ago
        http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2/?include_text=1 http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2/?in... Tons of change for marginal gain. And of course the old stuff will need to be supported at the same time.
    • deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]