HTTP/2 interop pains
daniel.haxx.se
HTTP/2 interop pains
1–10 of 30 posts
Re: HTTP/2 interop pains
#2Is this a mistake or Google trying to force the standards process in their favour? Users seem to be blaming Firefox, not Google.
Re: HTTP/2 interop pains
#3Is this a mistake or Google trying to force the standards process in their favour? Users seem to be blaming Firefox, not Google.
This doesn't drive the standards process in any particular direction, this is just a broken implementation that doesn't adhere to the current standard draft!
Re: HTTP/2 interop pains
#4Is this a mistake or Google trying to force the standards process in their favour? Users seem to be blaming Firefox, not Google.
This doesn't drive the standards process in any particular direction, this is just a broken implementation that doesn't adhere to the current standard draft!
It could drive the standards process in a particular direction if it would compel Firefox to implement Google's HTTP2 vision, so that beta users can log into Google services again. Then, suddenly, two major browser vendors support a particular blend of HTTP2, significantly increasing the chance of that road being taken.
It sounds overly mischievous though (and I doubt Mozilla will bend), so my bet is that it's a mistake.
Re: HTTP/2 interop pains
#5Earlier quoted context omitted.
This doesn't drive the standards process in any particular direction, this is just a broken implementation that doesn't adhere to the current standard draft!
It could drive the standards process in a particular direction if it would compel Firefox to implement Google's HTTP2 vision, so that beta users can log into Google services again. Then, suddenly, two major browser vendors support a particular blend of HTTP2, significantly increasing the chance of that road being taken. It sounds overly mischievous though (and I doubt Mozilla will bend), so my bet is that it's a mist…
I'm reminded of this passage from Mark Pilgrim's Dive into HTML5
> But none of this answers the original question: why do we have an element? Why not an element? Or an element? Why not a hyperlink with an include attribute, or some combination of rel values? Why an element? Quite simply, because Marc Andreessen shipped one, and shipping code wins.
> That’s not to say that all shipping code wins; after all, Andrew and Intermedia and HyTime shipped code too. Code is necessary but not sufficient for success. And I certainly don’t mean to say that shipping code before a standard will produce the best solution. Marc’s element didn’t mandate a common graphics format; it didn’t define how text flowed around it; it didn’t support text alternatives or fallback content for older browsers. And 17 years later, we’re still struggling with content sniffing, and it’s still a source of crazy security vulnerabilities. And you can trace that all the way back, 17 years, through the Great Browser Wars, all the way back to February 25, 1993, when Marc Andreessen offhandedly remarked, “MIME, someday, maybe,” and then shipped his code anyway.
> The ones that win are the ones that ship.
I'm not convinced it's a mistake, and it wouldn't be the first time a browser maker tried to influence the direction of web.
Re: HTTP/2 interop pains
#6Is this a mistake or Google trying to force the standards process in their favour? Users seem to be blaming Firefox, not Google.
It sounds like it doesn't work in Chrome either, so it's just broken.
Re: HTTP/2 interop pains
#7Is this a mistake or Google trying to force the standards process in their favour? Users seem to be blaming Firefox, not Google.
Was it typical behavior of SPDY before to block the connection unless it could pass cookies through? If not, then it definitely feels like Google is trying to force cookie-usage through the protocol, and by shipping it like this, it forces browser vendors to adopt it as-is.
Re: HTTP/2 interop pains
#8Does it work on Chrome (nightly or with that support enabled)?
Does anybody disagree that this is a no brainer for Mozilla: they should work that around ASAP (with a HTTP/2 blacklist for example). The impact is so high and it affects too many users.
Also note that Google in its deepest feelings wants FF down so this may by even intentional since people will always blame the client.
Re: HTTP/2 interop pains
#9Does it work on Chrome (nightly or with that support enabled)? Does anybody disagree that this is a no brainer for Mozilla: they should work that around ASAP (with a HTTP/2 blacklist for example). The impact is so high and it affects too many users. Also note that Google in its deepest feelings wants FF down so this may by even intentional since people will always blame the client.
Why should Mozilla act? This only affects nightlies and beta, as the article stated. If you use one of those, you should expect things to occasionally not work.
Re: HTTP/2 interop pains
#10my roomate's step-sister makes $68 hourly on the laptop . She has been without work for 8 months but last month her check was $20981 just working on the laptop for a few hours. visit this site right here------>>> www.jobsfish.com