Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't shift the burden of proof-It is up to HTTP/2 proponents to demonstrate that the benefits are greater than the costs and from everything I've seen the benefits are meager and the costs are large.
I'm not trying to shift the burden here, but the point made was along the lines of "HTTP2 is rubbish" - I've seen this a lot, with little to back it up. But I'd say some of the benefits were: - Server push support - Multiplexed requests/header compression/other performance improvements - Mandatory encryption support Downsides are (from what I understand): - Not a plaintext protocol There may be more downsides, which…
Couldn't a multi-part document already do this?
> - Mandatory encryption support
Couldn't they just have said "OK, HTTP 1.2 MUST be done over a TLS connection?" Also, didn't the TLS-always idea go away recently?
The downsides also include reïmplementing much of level 4 (congestion management, flow control, &c) and all of the complexity that goes with it.