Subject: HTTP/2 in examples

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 08:06:52 +0200

Hi there.

It just occurred to me that by switching to a non-textual message 
format, we lost a canonical way to represent messages in examples.

I wouldn't be surprised it people start using "HTTP/2" as protocol name 
in messages using the 1.1 format. Is this a problem? Do we need to make 
a recommendation?

Best regards, Julian

---

From: James M Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 23:23:26 -0700

https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/152

Using the http/1.1 syntax for http/2 won't work unless you're crystal clear
that the example is an abstract representation as opposed to on the wire
syntax. Even still, you'll have people who will screw it up. My
recommendation is to use a clearly different syntax that shows the framing.
That way, it'll be absolutely certain what is being shown in the example.

- James
On May 11, 2014 11:10 PM, "Julian Reschke" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi there.
>
> It just occurred to me that by switching to a non-textual message format,
> we lost a canonical way to represent messages in examples.
>
> I wouldn't be surprised it people start using "HTTP/2" as protocol name in
> messages using the 1.1 format. Is this a problem? Do we need to make a
> recommendation?
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
>

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 10:11:49 -0700

> https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/152

We're using James' proposed representation in the HTTP/2 draft.  This
is essentially just HTTP/1.1 with ':'-prefixed header fields rather
than a discrete request line. We use +/- as James proposed to indicate
the presence and absence of flags, but there we're talking about
framing.

But James is right to note the distinction between an HTTP/2
on-the-wire notation and generic "this is my HTTP request" notations.
In discussions of HTTP, I'm sure that we can continue to use HTTP/1.1
(or -like) representations.

I'm sure that we'll get by.