3 ms·
> That would have destroyed any hope of adoption by content providers and probably browsers. Bullshit, browser vendors have always lead the way on web tech. Re
by nly 12y ago
> That would have destroyed any hope of adoption by content providers and probably browsers.
Bullshit, browser vendors have always lead the way on web tech. Remember XMLHttpRequest (Microsoft)? How about Javascript or SSL, both invented by Netscape? A proper session layer is inevitable for HTTP. Websites are no longer stateless, making HTTP an ill-suited protocol. We should just accept it and move on.
- akerl_ 12y agoI believe that browser vendors will push technology that benefits them. That's definitely not in dispute. But you need to convince them that HTTP/2.0 is beneficial to them, and I don't think that will be easy if content providers aren't serving content via HTTP/2.0.
- tracker1 12y agoMost of the enhancements I'm aware of HTTP/2 are centered around SPDY.. along with persistent connections. The upconvert for SPDY and WebSocket connections are interesting on HTTP/1.0, I kind of wish that this had worked hand in hand with DNS to allow for DNSSEC publishing of public encryption keys for use with HTTP, then HTTP negotiating against that key. I also wish there were layer between full encryption for content that is intended to be available for http and https (without the extra overhead) for signed content.
- ibotty 12y agoWhat you want re public keys in dnssec secured DNS is called Dane. Browsers are slow to implement it though.
- pfraze 12y agoif you need to have a stateful connection, why not just use websockets? in many other cases (eg asset fetching) http/http2 are fine