Jump to content

Talk:HTTP

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Firzafp (talk | contribs) at 03:38, 22 October 2021 (→Current Situation of Hypertext Transfer Protocol ?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

WikiProject iconInternet C‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconComputing: Networking / Websites C‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Websites (assessed as High-importance).

Correction: Message Format

I've found out that the sentence The client and server communicate by sending plain-text (ASCII) messages is not right as it should be. Only the header is in plain text (ASCII), but not the body. The body must keep its own coding. In the case of binary files it's the binary coding we have to keep. Please correct the sentence stated above to fit therules in everyday webserver programming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:59:c33:ed00:a844:fb11:223c:a4b (talk) 12:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Encoding of messages

Currently the page says:

"The client and server communicate by sending plain-text (ASCII) messages."

I think this is mostly wrong. From what I found so far I would say:

Is there someone more familiar with this topic before I change the article?

194.118.248.19 (talk) 07:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is HTTP/1.1 (and older) now in minority?

I've been waiting and HTTP/2 is only up to 48.0% (from source given there), but then I realized HTTP/3 is up to 7.1% so I guess those add up to 55.1% meaning older only 44.9%? Or do they not add up that way? Anybody know where to find stats on only older? comp.arch (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 May 2021

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for a move at this time. BD2412 T 17:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hypertext Transfer Protocol → HTTP – Per WP:COMMONNAME. In both recent academic literature and in common usage by reliable sources, HTTP is more preferred over Hypertext Transfer Protocol. Per WP:CRITERIA we should use the name that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. and that is Natural – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. That is unambiguously "HTTP". That would also make this WP:CONSISTENT with HTTPS, as suggested by the RM closer there. Per the Article titles policy, the following help determine the COMMONNAME:

ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Natg 19 (talk) 01:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. BD2412 T 03:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - its convention for technical topics like this to expand the acronym in the title, see File Transfer Protocol, Transmission Control Protocol, Internet Message Access Protocol, and more listed on Template:IPstack. The CONSISTENT problem with HTTPS should be resolved by instead renaming that article. -- Netoholic @ 13:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There was clear consensus there to keep HTTPS. However, also note our titling on HTTP/2 on HTTP/3, which were formatted the same as HTTP in the RFC. I'd say it's OSE to compare it to other protocols. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ridiculous. You bring up HTTPS but then reject other protocols as "OSE". Can't have it both ways. WP:COMMONNAME isn't the only consideration. If you read other treatments on this topic, the full name is used in the title and/or the first mention, and then abbreviated the rest of the text. Wikipedia should follow this convention by expanding it likewise in the title and the leading line. This is ideal especially because when someone googles "HTTP", the side blurb in the results instantly displays the full name. -- Netoholic @ 21:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I made several arguments based on the WP:Article titles policy. Consistency is usually always the weakest one, because if we accept it as the dominant factor then it'd be impossible to change the titles of any of the protocol pages (because one would oppose with WP:CONSISTENT on any given one). The point here is that we use the abbreviation for all the HTTP related protocols: HTTPS, HTTP/2, HTTP/3. On the other criteria, all four other WP:CRITERIA are met with HTTP: Recognizability (HTTP is more recognisable than Hypertext Transfer Protocol, and as per the evidence in the nom, the same evidence the WP:AT policy suggests looking for), Naturalness (HTTP is more natural, of course), Precision (HTTP uniquely identifies the protocol), Conciseness (since precision is met by HTTP, Hypertext Transfer Protocol is unnecessarily long). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is a tough case. Some thoughts:
    • WP:CONSISTENT doesn't work either way because HTTP/2, HTTP/3, Border Gateway Protocol and Session Initiation Protocol (to take two random examples of lesser-known network protocols) are all at their correct titles.
    • It's okay to have "Hypertext Transfer Protocol" but also "HTTP/2" and "HTTP/3" as article titles. After all, we have United Nations but also UNICEF.
    • The "Some reliable sources" section of the nomination is a little misleading because 3 out of 4 of them (counting the topic home page instead of the given MDN link which is a subpage) use "Hypertext Transfer Protocol" first and then HTTP after as an abbreviation. This skews the Ngrams data as well: an article that uses the full term once and the abbreviation five times will show an apparently clear preference for the abbreviation that is in fact wholly misleading.
    • The tendency for the academic literature to use "HTTP" without ever defining it is interesting, but Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia with different aims and conventions than specialist literature.
I am leaning towards the opinion that "Hypertext Transfer Protocol" and "HTTP" are not different names but different variations of the same name and thus we can't use WP:COMMONNAME to discriminate between them. The full title is more useful to our readers because it tells them what the acronym stands for, so in light of that and my other arguments, the full title is the one that I support. Rublov (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why are those two at their correct titles? here is the HTTP RFC, titled: Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0, here is the HTTP/2 RFC, titled: Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2). So what makes the 'actual name'/correct title of HTTP/1.0 as "Hypertext Transfer Protocol" but makes HTTP/2's correct title not be Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 2? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We could call it "Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 2". That doesn't help your case, though. Rublov (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Considering its an acronym going by RS' doesn't make sense because they aren't two different names. But per MOS:ACROTITLE specifically In general, if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognize the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title.we should keep it, as i doubt anyone somewhat familiar with the topic will not know what the acronym means—blindlynx (talk) 03:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, clear WP:COMMONNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per USB, etc. Red Slash 23:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the title HTTP meets all five of the WP:CRITERIA for our article title policy. We do not aim to educate readers with our article titles, we do that in the body of the article by explaining that HTTP stands for Hypertext Transfer Protocol, but we do aim for the "principle of least astonishment" by giving our articles the most common name per WP:COMMONNAME. Many of our articles, such as Apache HTTP Server only use the acronym HTTP, and the related templates, such as Template:Web interfaces also only use HTTP, having to pipe the link through to this article. A google search will show the overwhelming use of "HTTP" with "8,080,000,000 results" for me, compared to "1,810,000 results" for "Hypertext Transfer Protocol". For clarity, as there seems to be some misunderstanding of how to apply WP:COMMONNAME - "Hypertext Transfer Protocol" and "HTTP" are different names for the same thing, and under our naming policy when we have different names for the same thing, we use the most common name. This should be an uncontroversial rename as HTTP is the appropriate name - and was the original name: [8], but the article was moved ([9]) to the current name by a since blocked user, and it appears that it is only now that somebody has got around to sorting it out. SilkTork (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The google results are very misleading, because they are returning results for "HTTP" for any document that has a URL in it. Three of the four "reliable sources" listed start by saying "Hypertext Transfer Protocol". It doesn't seem to pass the requirements for MOS:ACROTITLE. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 15:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and SilkTork. Something I would like to mention is that I think the elephant in the room is being ignored here. Everyone who has used a browser and ever fully seen a URL, has seen "HTTP" in the beginning. This makes it *by far* the most common name of the subject. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The protocol abbreviation isn't necessarily the common name. Should we move World Wide Web to WWW? Organization to org? American English to en-US? --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 18:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahecht: I don't have strong opinion on WWW, I think that's the common name indeed, as is "Web". Organization should not be moved, because it's not primarily used as a top level domain. American English has multiple abbreviations, so I think the full name makes sense there. I still think the article should be moved to HTTP. The other standard for Hypertext, HTML also uses the abbreviation as a title. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As for the protocol abbreviation in browsers, some major browsers (most notably Google Chrome) hide the protocol by default, so many users don't see it. And even if they see it, it's usually HTTPS, not HTTP. Furthermore, even in the (increasingly rare) cases when the protocol is HTTP and they can see it, they don't see the protocol name, that is, "HTTP". What they see is a scheme component of a URL, which is http: (followed by //, so what they see is http://, not HTTP). A URI scheme is not a protocol name, so you cannot base your argument on this.—J. M. (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument boils down to "the argument is invalid because users see the name with different capitalization". The scheme component of the URL is the *same* common protocol abbreviation, in lowercase. The hiding of the URL scheme is a relatively recent development, for the largest part of the last 30 years, browsers have shown it and some still do. When a URL is copied to some other software (or even within the browser itself), the URI scheme isn't hidden. I still strongly agree with @SilkTork:, HTTP is the common name, that should be used as the title for this article. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, my argument is that scheme component and protocol name are two different things. Just like, for example, filename extension (for example .odt) and format name (i.e. OpenDocument) are two different things. The former is a specific technical abbreviation used in a specific technical context, the latter is the actual name.—J. M. (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth looking at what other encyclopedias and tech guide sites do; ComputorLanguage, the specialist tech encyclopedia, has HTTP, and a search for the full term redirects to HTTP: [10]; Britannica has HTTP: [11]. TechTerms has HTTP: [12]. PCMag has HTTP: [13]. Techopedia has the full term: [14]. ComputorHope has HTTP: [15]. Webopedia has HTTP: [16]. This was just a quick and dirty Google search. SilkTork (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – the protocol is hypertext transfer protocol. The ngrams comparison is invalid for several reasons: 1) comparing a unigram to a trigram gives skewed results; 2) apples-to-oranges: you're assuming they are two names for the exact same thing, but they are not; as someone pointed out, HTTP is also a scheme, which is part of a URI, so every document talking about URIs and schemes will mention HTTP, but not the protocol name; 3) every book title in the world will use the abbreviation on the cover because it's convenient because it's shorter. 5) Title mentions rank much higher in search engine results by a lot than body mentions, this is a natural skewing factor towards 'HTTP'. There's more, but that's a start. Mathglot (talk) 09:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISION, nom and SilkTork, and dismiss any counter-examples like File Transfer Protocol (which should also be moved) per WP:OSE. I also want to address the protocol vs scheme argument: HTTP is also the name of the protocol, and it’s far more commonly used to refer to the protocol than is the full name (including in the text of this article). But in the event anyone still sees a COMMONNAME tie here, the concision razor clearly breaks it in favor of HTTP. —В²C ☎ 15:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Current Situation of Hypertext Transfer Protocol ?

Following many years, the current development of HTTP is increase drastically change due to HTTP/2 was out now in the favor of HTTPS (since 2017 for some, but for all since 2020) for everyone, however i doubt and think about the fate of HTTP will happen that you don't need HTTP again due to most of web browser developers HTTP was flagged as 'not secure' permanently (just like the fate of the end of FTP) since 2018 and later the HTTPS that soon become a 'The Only One HTTP' due to increase ignorance of HTTP or as a standard for web hosts in this era. --Firzafp (talk) 03:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC) (Sincerely, i'm read about Hypertext Transfer Protocol in silently)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:HTTP&oldid=1051201094"