This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
HTTP/2 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2014 Q1. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University of Michigan/SI 110: Introduction to Information (Winter 2014)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
Hi all, I was thinking that, if it is known and if it comes from a reliable source, it would be a good idea to add in the article the estimated release date of HTTP 2.0. I am pretty sure this addition would add value to the article. Does anybody know if there is an estimated release date of the new protocol? Thanks -- ★ Pikks ★ MsG 08:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this page seems somewhat one-sided to me. Having operated webservers in-depth for some time, I would like to point out there is resistance towards HTTP 2.0 / SPDY: https://www.varnish-cache.org/docs/trunk/phk/http20.html
I'll make a "Criticism"-section if I get the time, but until then, I'll just leave this comment. NickyThomassen ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Organization of this article is well done and the content ordering seems to flow. A more neutral stance could have been taken, especially in the “Background of HTTP 2.0” section. You write the phrase, “it is important to understand…” several times, and this should be reworded to seem more neutral, and read more like an encyclopedia article rather than an opinionated one. I’d love to see more connections to other links. Your “Protocol” section has many, but the other sections are lacking. More outside sources may provide readers with a better understanding of the topic and allow for even more research. This correlates with citations/references also. You’ve got a good start on citing your work, and I think even more could be done. More citations at the bottom of the page, and in-text citations throughout the article would prove the article to be more authentic and well researched. Keep up the good work! Goblue2013 ( talk) 21:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
The article contains a lot of information, but could have a better structure. For example you have a subsubsection goals, but also talk in three other sections about the goals in general. And this is just on example that I noticed immediately. What I did not find immediately are the actual changes from HTTP 1.x to 2, while those should deserve a subsection. Also there is a lot of redundant information, probably because the article grew along with the work on the standard and related stuff is all over the place, including information that is only historically relevant (the development should get an own subsection as well probably). Now that HTTP/2 is almost done, the article should get an overhaul. Also the new name is [ HTTP/2 instead of 2.0] -- 85.16.76.63 ( talk) 14:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved, self-closing per WP:SNOW. -- intgr [talk] 10:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
HTTP 2.0 →
HTTP/2 – Given the very clear official preference at
[1] and the fact that a
"http 2" Google search mostly also turns up references to "HTTP/2", I think we should rename this article. --
intgr
[talk]
08:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
The section on differences from SPDY has some rather unfriendly ambiguous text:
This doesn't make any sense to me, and the reference is simply pointing at the spec. Frankly this sounds like a load of bollocks. HTTP/2 still specifies that there should only be one connection to a host per client. "SPDY can only download things from one host at a time" is--AFAICT--false.
This page has a NPOV banner, but I don't see any discussion of POV on this page currently. Should it be removed, and if not, what is the dispute?
mnot ( talk) 01:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
User:MureninC has added material sourced from what appears to be their own blog/mailing list posting. This has been reverted before, and I have reverted it again. Let's discuss the addition, specifically any sources meeting WP:RS supporting it, here. Rwessel ( talk) 06:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Rwessel: some of that text simply is incorrect ("consensus pro encryption"), the other part just copies stuff that was sent to the WG's mailing list and IMHO was properly replied to over there. This is not a place to copy mailing list discussions from a unilateral point of view. Reschke ( talk) 07:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
in lieu of consensus for mandatory TLSparagraph, then that one was a part of a bulk revert from a previous revert; if you think it's incorrect, I'm fine with it being fixed. MureninC ( talk) 19:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
fails to mention the feedback that was provided/
the text fails to mention the replies the author got). This has since then been addressed in the latest edit, so, there is no more a need to still keep the whole text and section reverted. MureninC ( talk) 02:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
"It is noteworthy that even though the mandatory encryption that has been criticized by an agent of the industry leader in 2013 has not been made mandatory as part of the standard, as of early 2015 the agenda has nonetheless been carried over by the leading browser makers, who have thus far refused to implement HTTP/2 without encryption."
This sentence is very hard to understand. Trying to communicate that the leading browser makers implementing with encryption... or not? I am guessing yes, ("the agenda") but that's after reading several times, and by slightly knowing the subject. Too long of a sentence and too many negations to make quick sense out of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.94.146.19 ( talk) 07:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Holizz recently removed the HTTP/2#Browser support section, because most of the content was on the Comparison of web browsers page and this had been tagged for a merge. 128.211.193.44 has reverted this because the table contains information about TLS support. I near as I can tell, *all* web browsers supporting HTTP/2 support TLS, but some major ones (Chrome, Firefox, IE), so not support (unencrypted) non-TLS session. While a non-TLS HTTP2 column could be added to the Comparison of web browsers article, or perhaps a multi-way indication of support in the one existing HTTP/2 column, I'm not sure that's needed. The (lack) of non-TLS support appears to be a non-issue, as very, very little would actually use that mode, and so very few servers will even be set up to support it. So my suggestion is to just go ahead and remove this section again. Rwessel ( talk) 01:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the following from the article:
This appears to me to be a mixture of commentary and speculation, which is not allowed in articles: see WP:OR, WP:CRYSTAL. -- The Anome ( talk) 12:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
I was reading the wiki article on HTTP and following I read the one on HTTP/2. I noticed there is a discrepancy. In HTTP/2 it reads:
"HTTP/2 is the first new version of HTTP since HTTP 1.1, which was standardized in RFC 2068 in 1997"
But the article on HTTP reads:
"The first definition of HTTP/1.1, the version of HTTP in common use, occurred in RFC 2068 in 1997, although this was obsoleted by RFC 2616 in 1999."
Does it mean that HTTP/2 replaced the version from 1999 rather than the version from 1997 the HTTP/2 article states?
All the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8bit traveler ( talk • contribs) 18:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The introduction on this page mentions W3Techs in a way that implies they are an Authoritative Source of Information. If that is true, then Wikipedia should have a page describing W3Tech. Gwrede ( talk) 19:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Currently the lead section is the history of HTTP/2's development and introduction, its current browser support, and the history of its successor's development and introduction. It would be more useful to move most of that detail to separate sections, and concentrate in the lead on what HTTP/2 is. The best way to do that would seem to be to refer to HTTP for the general idea, HTTP 1.1 for the starting point, and then spend the time talking about what HTTP/2 added or changed.
I'm not the right person to write this, but as a reader it looks like the main points are those under "decrease latency" in the goals. The rest of the goals are just '...without breaking anything'. Steven Kelly ( talk) 13:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
References
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
HTTP/2 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2014 Q1. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University of Michigan/SI 110: Introduction to Information (Winter 2014)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
Hi all, I was thinking that, if it is known and if it comes from a reliable source, it would be a good idea to add in the article the estimated release date of HTTP 2.0. I am pretty sure this addition would add value to the article. Does anybody know if there is an estimated release date of the new protocol? Thanks -- ★ Pikks ★ MsG 08:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this page seems somewhat one-sided to me. Having operated webservers in-depth for some time, I would like to point out there is resistance towards HTTP 2.0 / SPDY: https://www.varnish-cache.org/docs/trunk/phk/http20.html
I'll make a "Criticism"-section if I get the time, but until then, I'll just leave this comment. NickyThomassen ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Organization of this article is well done and the content ordering seems to flow. A more neutral stance could have been taken, especially in the “Background of HTTP 2.0” section. You write the phrase, “it is important to understand…” several times, and this should be reworded to seem more neutral, and read more like an encyclopedia article rather than an opinionated one. I’d love to see more connections to other links. Your “Protocol” section has many, but the other sections are lacking. More outside sources may provide readers with a better understanding of the topic and allow for even more research. This correlates with citations/references also. You’ve got a good start on citing your work, and I think even more could be done. More citations at the bottom of the page, and in-text citations throughout the article would prove the article to be more authentic and well researched. Keep up the good work! Goblue2013 ( talk) 21:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
The article contains a lot of information, but could have a better structure. For example you have a subsubsection goals, but also talk in three other sections about the goals in general. And this is just on example that I noticed immediately. What I did not find immediately are the actual changes from HTTP 1.x to 2, while those should deserve a subsection. Also there is a lot of redundant information, probably because the article grew along with the work on the standard and related stuff is all over the place, including information that is only historically relevant (the development should get an own subsection as well probably). Now that HTTP/2 is almost done, the article should get an overhaul. Also the new name is [ HTTP/2 instead of 2.0] -- 85.16.76.63 ( talk) 14:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved, self-closing per WP:SNOW. -- intgr [talk] 10:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
HTTP 2.0 →
HTTP/2 – Given the very clear official preference at
[1] and the fact that a
"http 2" Google search mostly also turns up references to "HTTP/2", I think we should rename this article. --
intgr
[talk]
08:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
The section on differences from SPDY has some rather unfriendly ambiguous text:
This doesn't make any sense to me, and the reference is simply pointing at the spec. Frankly this sounds like a load of bollocks. HTTP/2 still specifies that there should only be one connection to a host per client. "SPDY can only download things from one host at a time" is--AFAICT--false.
This page has a NPOV banner, but I don't see any discussion of POV on this page currently. Should it be removed, and if not, what is the dispute?
mnot ( talk) 01:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
User:MureninC has added material sourced from what appears to be their own blog/mailing list posting. This has been reverted before, and I have reverted it again. Let's discuss the addition, specifically any sources meeting WP:RS supporting it, here. Rwessel ( talk) 06:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Rwessel: some of that text simply is incorrect ("consensus pro encryption"), the other part just copies stuff that was sent to the WG's mailing list and IMHO was properly replied to over there. This is not a place to copy mailing list discussions from a unilateral point of view. Reschke ( talk) 07:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
in lieu of consensus for mandatory TLSparagraph, then that one was a part of a bulk revert from a previous revert; if you think it's incorrect, I'm fine with it being fixed. MureninC ( talk) 19:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
fails to mention the feedback that was provided/
the text fails to mention the replies the author got). This has since then been addressed in the latest edit, so, there is no more a need to still keep the whole text and section reverted. MureninC ( talk) 02:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
"It is noteworthy that even though the mandatory encryption that has been criticized by an agent of the industry leader in 2013 has not been made mandatory as part of the standard, as of early 2015 the agenda has nonetheless been carried over by the leading browser makers, who have thus far refused to implement HTTP/2 without encryption."
This sentence is very hard to understand. Trying to communicate that the leading browser makers implementing with encryption... or not? I am guessing yes, ("the agenda") but that's after reading several times, and by slightly knowing the subject. Too long of a sentence and too many negations to make quick sense out of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.94.146.19 ( talk) 07:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Holizz recently removed the HTTP/2#Browser support section, because most of the content was on the Comparison of web browsers page and this had been tagged for a merge. 128.211.193.44 has reverted this because the table contains information about TLS support. I near as I can tell, *all* web browsers supporting HTTP/2 support TLS, but some major ones (Chrome, Firefox, IE), so not support (unencrypted) non-TLS session. While a non-TLS HTTP2 column could be added to the Comparison of web browsers article, or perhaps a multi-way indication of support in the one existing HTTP/2 column, I'm not sure that's needed. The (lack) of non-TLS support appears to be a non-issue, as very, very little would actually use that mode, and so very few servers will even be set up to support it. So my suggestion is to just go ahead and remove this section again. Rwessel ( talk) 01:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the following from the article:
This appears to me to be a mixture of commentary and speculation, which is not allowed in articles: see WP:OR, WP:CRYSTAL. -- The Anome ( talk) 12:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
I was reading the wiki article on HTTP and following I read the one on HTTP/2. I noticed there is a discrepancy. In HTTP/2 it reads:
"HTTP/2 is the first new version of HTTP since HTTP 1.1, which was standardized in RFC 2068 in 1997"
But the article on HTTP reads:
"The first definition of HTTP/1.1, the version of HTTP in common use, occurred in RFC 2068 in 1997, although this was obsoleted by RFC 2616 in 1999."
Does it mean that HTTP/2 replaced the version from 1999 rather than the version from 1997 the HTTP/2 article states?
All the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8bit traveler ( talk • contribs) 18:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The introduction on this page mentions W3Techs in a way that implies they are an Authoritative Source of Information. If that is true, then Wikipedia should have a page describing W3Tech. Gwrede ( talk) 19:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Currently the lead section is the history of HTTP/2's development and introduction, its current browser support, and the history of its successor's development and introduction. It would be more useful to move most of that detail to separate sections, and concentrate in the lead on what HTTP/2 is. The best way to do that would seem to be to refer to HTTP for the general idea, HTTP 1.1 for the starting point, and then spend the time talking about what HTTP/2 added or changed.
I'm not the right person to write this, but as a reader it looks like the main points are those under "decrease latency" in the goals. The rest of the goals are just '...without breaking anything'. Steven Kelly ( talk) 13:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
References