Re: [hybi] Extensibility mechanisms?

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 19.04.2010 02:05, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>>
>> The client and server APIs must be suitable for amateur programmers, and
>> the wire protocol must support those simple APIs, but it's _not_
>> important that the wire protocol be implementable by someone who can't
>> understand buffering, chunking or encoding. After all, HTTP/1.1 requires
>> those capabilities.
>
> IMHO, HTTP is a disaster in terms of getting multiple server-side

It seems we have a fundamental disagreement about what is a "disaster".

> implementations. Over three quarters of the market is dominated by two
> vendors, and the third largest vendor on a per-server basis is a company

Sounds like the browser market, btw.

> that runs a proprietary implementation and derives significant benefit
> from being able to do so. There are some custom servers, e.g. in some set

Where's the problem with that?

> top boxes or other network devices too small to run one of the few common
> servers, and many of those are highly incomplete or buggy implementations.

There are also many servers running, for instances, one of the many 
Servlet/J2EE implementations. These may not be significant compared to 
the absolute number of servers out there, but how is that relevant???

> I would not consider HTTP a model solution here. On the contrary. Its
> complexity has led to a rather stagnant monoculture which is an attacker's
> dream. A single exploit can affect millions of servers.
 > ...

Yes. What does that have to do with the protocol, btw?

Best regards, Julian