On 5/1/09 5:01 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote: >> Explain how rev'ing HTTP to 1.2 would have "broke the web" ... ? > > Millions of client and server would no longer be able to interoperate > without deploying new software, servers, proxies, caches, etc. When > the client and server speaks a different protocol, they cannot > interoperate. But they*obviously* can even with the changes made to > HTTP 1.1 (reality proves this). If they changed the version to 1.2, > old clients will no longer work with new servers and the change would > have added confusion. The key here is 'added no value'. If you need > to change the wire version for an actual technical reason, do it. But > since changing the wire version break stuff, you need to have a > reason to do it.
You do realize that when we rev'ed HTTP from 0.9 to 1.0 and then 1.1, the web didn't "break." It is possible to rev a protocol without breaking older clients (unless you INTEND to, such as in the case of CLOSING a security threat). If your argument is that our currently proposed change to the protocol breaks backwards compatibility, then say so. But saying "rev'ing the protocol version number will necessarily backward compatibility" means the protocol was BROKEN in design in the first place. -- Dossy Shiobara | do...@panoptic.com | http://dossy.org/ Panoptic Computer Network | http://panoptic.com/ "He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on." (p. 70) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OAuth" group. To post to this group, send email to oauth@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to oauth+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/oauth?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
