Conversation
I searched for
My interpretation of this (and to be fair it looks like I may have been the person who wrote it, so I'm not impartial), it's saying "here's what to do if there's no Accept, which follows the conventions laid out by HTTP1.1's definition of Accept". I don't think it's requiring the use of HTTP 1.1 at all? |
benjie
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not convinced that we should require support for HTTP1.1. Is there a good reason that servers should not be able to be HTTP2+ only?
|
https://graphql.github.io/graphql-over-http/draft/#sel-DANFCAACCB_9Z And RFC7231 starts with "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content". I didn't read the whole RFC so maybe it's just about semantics but it wasn't immediatly clear that HTTP 2 was supported.
I also think we should allow HTTP2+ only. Maybe it's just a clarifying sentence that Or something like this? |
The current spec mentions HTTP 1.1 everywhere so I guess this is a requirement? But we might want to allow HTTP 2.0 still?