HTTP 2.0: The Google Way or the Microsoft Way?
pandawhale.com
HTTP 2.0: The Google Way or the Microsoft Way?
1–6 of 6 posts
Re: HTTP 2.0: The Google Way or the Microsoft Way?
#2The comment that makes me think:
Spec'ing HTTP 2.0 has been such a clusterfuck. According to Mark in an email to the HTTP Working Group, as of January 2012 they were "past the four year mark (on a WG that was originally chartered for a year and a half)".
No wonder he's concerned about failure through "spending five years fighting and gazing at our navels."
Re: HTTP 2.0: The Google Way or the Microsoft Way?
#3Hopefully they team together, it would be better for everyone, but then again, they usually don't care about standards in that way.
Re: HTTP 2.0: The Google Way or the Microsoft Way?
#4The comment that makes me think: Spec'ing HTTP 2.0 has been such a clusterfuck. According to Mark in an email to the HTTP Working Group, as of January 2012 they were "past the four year mark (on a WG that was originally chartered for a year and a half)". No wonder he's concerned about failure through "spending five years fighting and gazing at our navels."
This doesn't really follow. They spent four years doing nothing; that doesn't mean that it will take five more years to create the 2.0 spec.
Re: HTTP 2.0: The Google Way or the Microsoft Way?
#5The comment that makes me think: Spec'ing HTTP 2.0 has been such a clusterfuck. According to Mark in an email to the HTTP Working Group, as of January 2012 they were "past the four year mark (on a WG that was originally chartered for a year and a half)". No wonder he's concerned about failure through "spending five years fighting and gazing at our navels."
This doesn't really follow. They spent four years doing nothing; that doesn't mean that it will take five more years to create the 2.0 spec.
I agree that past is not always an indicator of future.
But in this case, doing exactly the same things and expecting a different outcome is insanity defined.
Re: HTTP 2.0: The Google Way or the Microsoft Way?
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
This doesn't really follow. They spent four years doing nothing; that doesn't mean that it will take five more years to create the 2.0 spec.
I agree that past is not always an indicator of future. But in this case, doing exactly the same things and expecting a different outcome is insanity defined.
They're not doing the same things; now we have two proposals on the table, one of which has been widely deployed.