|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the HTTP/2 article.|
|WikiProject Internet||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Computing / Networking||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|This article is/was the subject of an educational assignment in 2014 Q1. Further details are available on the course page.|
HTTP 2.0 (estimated) release date
Hi all, I was thinking that, if it is known and if it comes from a reliable source, it would be a good idea to add in the article the estimated release date of HTTP 2.0. I am pretty sure this addition would add value to the article. Does anybody know if there is an estimated release date of the new protocol? Thanks --MsG 08:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- I added the milestone table from the charter. The current plan is for standardization in late 2014. This could have general adoption likely beginning in 2015, though you'll probably get experimental implementations in Firefox and Chrome sometime in 2014 for testing and use with early adopting sites. Note that it is entirely possible that this timetable could get delayed for a lengthy time if no consensus is reached during its development period, so there's no way to state any release date with any certainty at this early stage. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
A "Criticism"-section should be made
I'm sorry, but this page seems somewhat one-sided to me. Having operated webservers in-depth for some time, I would like to point out there is resistance towards HTTP 2.0 / SPDY: https://www.varnish-cache.org/docs/trunk/phk/http20.html
- Hello there! Hm, this is a quite interesting quotation from the above linked page:
- "Our general policy is to only add protocols if we can do a better job than the alternative, which is why we have not implemented HTTPS for instance."
- So, how did they do a better job regarding HTTPS, for example? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Given the latest comment by a member of the WG, it seems that a criticism section is something that people will be looking for (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2014AprJun/0815.html) Sgaragan (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
More references, less opinion
Organization of this article is well done and the content ordering seems to flow. A more neutral stance could have been taken, especially in the “Background of HTTP 2.0” section. You write the phrase, “it is important to understand…” several times, and this should be reworded to seem more neutral, and read more like an encyclopedia article rather than an opinionated one. I’d love to see more connections to other links. Your “Protocol” section has many, but the other sections are lacking. More outside sources may provide readers with a better understanding of the topic and allow for even more research. This correlates with citations/references also. You’ve got a good start on citing your work, and I think even more could be done. More citations at the bottom of the page, and in-text citations throughout the article would prove the article to be more authentic and well researched. Keep up the good work! Goblue2013 (talk) 21:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- This phrasing has since been changed, and I improved the sourcing. -- Beland (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Structure of the article
The article contains a lot of information, but could have a better structure. For example you have a subsubsection goals, but also talk in three other sections about the goals in general. And this is just on example that I noticed immediately. What I did not find immediately are the actual changes from HTTP 1.x to 2, while those should deserve a subsection. Also there is a lot of redundant information, probably because the article grew along with the work on the standard and related stuff is all over the place, including information that is only historically relevant (the development should get an own subsection as well probably). Now that HTTP/2 is almost done, the article should get an overhaul. Also the new name is [HTTP/2 instead of 2.0] --184.108.40.206 (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Rename to HTTP/2?
Differences from SPDY
The section on differences from SPDY has some rather unfriendly ambiguous text:
- SPDY communicates separately with each host, which means that multiplexing happens only at one host at a time, no matter how many connections are open. This means that SPDY can only download things from one host at a time. The improvement HTTP 2.0 makes on this is that it allows multiplexing to happen at different hosts at the same time. This makes downloading multiple web pages or content from the Internet significantly faster.
This doesn't make any sense to me, and the reference is simply pointing at the spec. Frankly this sounds like a load of bollocks. HTTP/2 still specifies that there should only be one connection to a host per client. "SPDY can only download things from one host at a time" is--AFAICT--false.