Talk:HTTP 2.0

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Internet (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Computing / Networking (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Networking task force (marked as High-importance).
 

HTTP 2.0 (estimated) release date[edit]

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 --★ Pikks ★ 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. 108.16.222.138 (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

A "Criticism"-section should be made[edit]

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

I'll make a "Criticism"-section if I get the time, but until then, I'll just leave this comment. NickyThomassen (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

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)
By not implementing it and leaving it up the user to proxy HTTPS and strip the SSL. Perbu (talk) 06:33, 27 May 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)
A separate "criticism" section is strongly discouraged, see WP:CSECTION. Multiple viewpoints should be described in context. -- intgr [talk] 16:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

More references, less opinion[edit]

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)