Talk:SPDY

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Logo needed[edit]

My googling suggest that this isn't an Acronym, but is a shortened version of the logo which looks like SP ee DY. This article could use that logo. 7&6=thirteen () 14:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.
Could you link to that logo? I cannot find it. Regards SoWhy 19:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Not sure that SPeeDY is a logo being promulgated by Google and Chromium. However, SPDY™ protocol is a registered trademark of Google. "Guidelines for Third Party Use of Google Brand Features". Retrieved September 30,2011.  Check date values in: |access-date= (help) 7&6=thirteen () 09:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

HTTP or HTTPS?[edit]

How can SPDY replace HTTP if it is SLL encrypted? To use SPDY you need an SSL certificate, this means SPDY can only replace HTTPS, but not HTTP. --217.251.249.203 (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

How HTTPS cant replace HTTP? It is already widely used as replacement to HTTP due to the added security, not to mention SPDY which adds also other benefits.Mayhaymate (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I did some research into SPDY protocol a while ago, and found nothing about SSL/TLS in my research, so I was very skeptical of the statement about SPDY being built on SSL/TLS there when I read it. I had a quick look over the spec, and can't find anything to confirm that SPDY is built on top of SSL/TLS, despite CloudFlare's apparent misstatement to that effect. Somebody might want to slap a dubious/disputed on there, or just remove it entirely. Pegasus Epsilon (talk) 09:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

You can't use it without SSL, your browser won't let you unless you enable some flags manually. -iopq (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

FREE or Proprietary?[edit]

Is SPDY free or proprietary - I think this is a critical piece of information for articles in this domain.

What is the license? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.95.171 (talk) 08:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

sites running SPDY[edit]

Looks like facebook.com does NOT support SPDY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.188.187 (talk) 02:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC) Correction, its enabled on some but not all, depending on which server you end up on. Most seem to be disabled here (testing from Australia) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.188.187 (talk) 07:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC) Facebook still isn't SPDY most of the time, easily verified by using the chrome SPDY indicator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.188.187 (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Firefox SPDY add-on[edit]

Why not mention the existence of this useful add-on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.86.251.249 (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if you're referring to the "HTTP/2 and SPDY indicator" add-on, formerly known as the "SPDY indicator" add-on, but if you are, it's already mentioned in the last sentence of the Firefox entry in the Client (browser) support and usage section. Conquerist (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

15 bits version? really?[edit]

"In its control frames there are 15 dedicated bits to indicate the version of the session protocol" that sounds really weird, why would they use an obscure 15bit version number instead of the standard int16? couldn't find any mention of this in the actual HTTP/2 draft spec .. after a quick look, anyway. im really goona need some source, or im removing that (to me) highly questionable statement.. Divinity76 (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Link to HTTP/2 in See also[edit]

I would strongly recommend to put a link to HTTP/2 in the See also section.

Kashmiri, hereby notified, suggests the link isn't needed as already linked in the text.

The guidelines provide "links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic".

Yet, they also provide ""See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense" and HTTP/2 is probably the most related topic to SPDY.

It would allow a smoother navigation and to find the article about HTTP/2 for readers who find "the new protocol inspired by SPDY".

--Dereckson (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. (MOS:SEEALSO)

Naturally, I won't object if consensus is to override this rule in this specific article, although "ease of navigation" is not a convincing reason for me: because the same could be said about almost every other link from the article, or indeed pretty much any article.

kashmiri TALK 15:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

(although a seemingly old issue now) We currently have two one link to HTTP/2 in the lead. The body is a better place than the see also, but as HTTP/2 obsoletes SPDY then a hatnote or nav template is more of a consideration (not that I see the need for that either). Widefox; talk 00:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation[edit]

More opinions are welcome on the style for the pronunciation at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Pronunciation#Other_transcription_systems_-_homonym. It's pronunciation respelling for English. My understanding of MOS is it says generally 1. use IPA, then 2. (italics) but in cases like this a homonym may be best, but isn't clear about the style. Ping User:Jeh Widefox; talk 00:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)