

Why HTTP/2.0 does not seem interesting (2012) - zdw
https://www.varnish-cache.org/docs/trunk/phk/http20.html

======
zimbatm
In regards to the Host header. One thing that always seemed awkward to me is
that the request line can contain the full URI on proxies but not for end-
points. I suppose for backward-compatibility.

Instead of: "GET /some/path HTTP/1.1\r\nHost: example.com" We could have: "GET
[http://example.com/some/path](http://example.com/some/path) HTTP/2.0\r\n"

[https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-5.1](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-5.1)

~~~
nly
If you merged the transports (for example, everything was over HTTPS), we
could just have "GET example.com/some/path HTTP/2.0\r\n"

~~~
zimbatm
Yes, and then add SCTP (over UDP) and we have most of SPDY's benefits :) As
they say, if the protocol's not supported, HTTP 1.1 fallback is always
supported.

------
dang
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6014976](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6014976)

------
bhouston
I'm of the opinion that nothing will be perfect and that you can not please
everyone. That said, it is good to hear dissenting voices.

~~~
synctext
You indeed cannot please everyone. But not addressing complexity, simply
adding more.. Not solving the cookies issue, it's not sufficient.

Protocols are more then a spec, they express the norms&values of an ecosystem.
Is privacy really appropriately valued?

~~~
personZ
Is there some alternative specification that solves these "issues"? Or is this
one of those hand-wavy "solve it" kinds of things, where we have the luxury of
not considering or worrying about the inevitable downsides of alternative
approaches?

