Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations)

http2.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–89 of 89 posts

Re: HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations)

#81

Post by LaGrange »

sp332 wrote: post #60
LaGrange wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite a few black people use the term „nigger” between themselves, and I know at least one couple that adopted „asshole” as an affectionate term. Not to mention completely ridiculous yet popular terms like „pumpkin”. Just because some people adopted the word in some narrow context doesn’t change its meaning outside of it. There’s many behaviors that are common and acceptable towards your significant other and yet com…

The thing with calling someone "babe" is that it's too... forward? It's something that you call people you already know, so saying "babe" to a stranger is presumptuous. Anything in that category would have the same effect I think: honey, sweetheart. It's also possible to use it in a belittling way, but I can't think of any synonym for "woman" which couldn't, if you use the right tone of voice. That's just general sex…

You could say "good morning" in a demeaning way, if you used a certain tone. It depends on specific culture, but usually there's certain very obvious (I have aspergers, so if I can see them, everyone can) protocols of interaction with people you don't know well. And in most situations you'd use the word "babe" at someone you don't know very well you probably shouldn't speak at all. The one exception that comes to my mind is "you're an actor and that's your line". So, yes, it's quite a bit worse than "miss". "Lady" only in third person, like "that lady just drove an 18 wheeler over my foot!"

But yes, honey and sweetheart would work just as badly. And yes, there's quite a few words that are worse. But "hey, they could do worse!" is no real argument. Sure they could.

Re: HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations)

#82

Post by EdwardDiego »

mseebach wrote: post #33
diminoten wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

0xCAFEBABE is (I can't believe I'm going to do this) vaguely sexist though, so the cringe for me, at least, is thinking about my daughter reading that and thinking her father came up with it, and thus believing "BABE" is the kind of phrase dad would use to describe women in general. Or maybe I'm over-reacting. No idea.

Yes, you're overreacting. Babe is an endearing term. It's sexist only in the sense that it identifies the gender of the subject of endearment.

It also assigns them an infantile quality.

Re: HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations)

#83

Post by techdragon »

alanh wrote: post #78
mcguire wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Smoothed and refined" by the IETF?

What are you seeking to clarify? Hard to tell if you are inquiring as to how that happened, quibbling with the word choices, or disagreeing completely.

Looks to me that it was an expression of 'quizzical sarcasm' in the form of a question.

Re: HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations)

#84

Post by ll_cool_james »

jimktrains2 wrote: post #57
rrmm wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The complexity is not horrible as far as communications protocols go. Anyone know what working implementations exist currently? Ideally, it'd be nice to see actual real world data showing the benefits over http 1.1.

But that's the thing...it's _not_ a communication's protocol. It's a transfer protocol...

To-may-to, to-mah-to..

Re: HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations)

#85

Post by rakoo »

teacup50 wrote: post #75
Karunamon wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Give me humanity and a sense of humor over PC-"professionalism" any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

This kind of "sense of humor" doesn't belong in a formal specification document. Sorry.

But why ? The point of a specification is that everyone agrees on how we talk together, it's not about Being Professional and Looking Serious.

Re: HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations)

#86

Post by thirsteh »

alanh wrote: post #79
thirsteh wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but are you really implying that HTTP doesn't scale?

Are you really implying it doesn’t? So many Web “best practices” are working around the limitations of HTTP and the web 1.0 legacy we still carry around. See: 1. Concatenating resources (1 CSS file is worlds better than 50. Need it be?) 2. Inlining resources (see above) 3. Scaling, yes, is very hard! Look at all the techniques for deploying updates to web apps without breaking users' experiences. I’m not saying HTTP2…

Am I implying that it does? Yes.

1. We do that for other reasons too, anyway, like minifying and optimization. For other things, keepalive has worked fairly well.

2. Sure.

3. This has nothing to do with the protocol.

I don't really disagree vehemently with your points--I'm just pointing out that claiming HTTP doesn't scale is completely ludicrous, given that it literally powers nearly everything of scale.

Re: HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations)

#87

Post by jimktrains2 »

ll_cool_james wrote: post #84
jimktrains2 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's the thing...it's _not_ a communication's protocol. It's a transfer protocol...

To-may-to, to-mah-to..

No, because a communication protocol has to handle all the types of problems HTTP and TCP solve. A transfer protocol is concerned with moving data and meta data, not the problems TCP solves.

Re: HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations)

#88

Post by mcguire »

techdragon wrote: post #83
alanh wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you seeking to clarify? Hard to tell if you are inquiring as to how that happened, quibbling with the word choices, or disagreeing completely.

Looks to me that it was an expression of 'quizzical sarcasm' in the form of a question.

I should probably have explained further, but there is a certain amount of irony in that statement.

See ietf@ietf.org for more details: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/maillist.h...

Re: HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations)

#89

Post by bitwize »

thirsteh wrote: post #86
alanh wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you really implying it doesn’t? So many Web “best practices” are working around the limitations of HTTP and the web 1.0 legacy we still carry around. See: 1. Concatenating resources (1 CSS file is worlds better than 50. Need it be?) 2. Inlining resources (see above) 3. Scaling, yes, is very hard! Look at all the techniques for deploying updates to web apps without breaking users' experiences. I’m not saying HTTP2…

Am I implying that it does? Yes. 1. We do that for other reasons too, anyway, like minifying and optimization. For other things, keepalive has worked fairly well. 2. Sure. 3. This has nothing to do with the protocol. I don't really disagree vehemently with your points--I'm just pointing out that claiming HTTP doesn't scale is completely ludicrous, given that it literally powers nearly everything of scale.

SPDY wouldn't be a thing if HTTP were sufficient at the massive scales we're talking here.
Post reply on HN