<story><title>Intent to unship: HTTP/2 Push</title><url>https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/g/dev-platform/c/vU9hJg343U8/m/4cZsHz7TAQAJ</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>saurik</author><text>It is extremely annoying that all of this sudden discovery that http2 push didn&amp;#x27;t work hasn&amp;#x27;t come with some kind of apology to everyone out here who had tried to explain before why this wouldn&amp;#x27;t work and why it would be a dangerous waste of time just to be shouted down for years by the people insisting it was going to be epic as the much-smarter people at Google knew what they were doing and really needed this so we should just let them ram it into the spec. We should be extremely conservative about what we put in the spec and stop just throwing in speculative stretch goals because some people at Google thought it&amp;#x27;s a good idea.</text></comment>
<story><title>Intent to unship: HTTP/2 Push</title><url>https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/g/dev-platform/c/vU9hJg343U8/m/4cZsHz7TAQAJ</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>_heimdall</author><text>I never found the explanations given for why HTTP&amp;#x2F;2 Push failed compelling. Google usually just refers to a blog post from Jake Archibald [1], but that post seems to call out all the ways browsers poorly implemented it rather than reasons the protocol itself wouldn&amp;#x27;t work.&lt;p&gt;Browsers already support preload links, which should function effectively the same as a Push header. Why couldn&amp;#x27;t that same code have been used for Push, including all the existing handling for things like caching and authorization headers that Jake called out as challenges with the 2017 implementations?&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;jakearchibald.com&amp;#x2F;2017&amp;#x2F;h2-push-tougher-than-i-thought&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;jakearchibald.com&amp;#x2F;2017&amp;#x2F;h2-push-tougher-than-i-though...&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>