- From: Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 00:51:20 -0600
- To: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, Johnny Graettinger <jgraettinger@chromium.org>, William Chan ( ιζΊζ) <willchan@chromium.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, Jesse Wilson <jesse@swank.ca>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
"Poul-Henning Kamp" wrote: > > What really surprises me is that we see such proposals to name&shame > proxies which do not allow random private extensions through, but > no proposals to name&shame browsers which do not want to support > HTTP/2 upgrade ? > > The goals are obviously not to ensure the widest possible adoption > of HTTP/2. > > I certainly looks like a number of WG participants are much more > focuses on getting HTTP/2 to work for their own private, (soon to > be walled ?), garden, than to make HTTP/2 the best possible protocol > for the web as such. > Exactly. Why are so many folks talking about HTTP/3 as a solution to the shortcomings of HTTP/2 when HTTP/2 isn't even in LC? If HTTP/2 were "getting it right" then why all the talk of deferring proper architecture to HTTP/3? So discouraging... -Eric
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 06:51:43 UTC