Talk:HTTP

Editing of this page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled.
See the protection policy and protection log for more details. If you cannot edit this page and you wish to make a change, you can request unprotection, log in, or create an account.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the HTTP article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 3 months

Internet Top‑importance

	Internet portal This 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing: Networking / Websites High‑importance

	This 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Websites (assessed as High-importance).

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 4.

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)

As of today, what you mention is not in the article. Stevebroshar (talk) 11:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 06:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hypertext Transfer Protocol → HTTP – The acronym, HTTP, as far more common than the full name, and should be the title per MOS:ACROTITLE. Related articles like HTML, XML, PHP, CSS, API (the list is too big to name them all) use acronyms. Even HTTPS uses an acronym, so it's weird that HTTP doesn't. Zerbu ^💬 01:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. NasssaNser_talk 02:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. netjeff (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per previous RM [1] 162 etc. (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support move. Although it's hard to judge the common name in a case like this, "HTTP" is so well known that it's almost certainly common. O.N.R. ^(talk) 12:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Usage? Support?

The table in 'Summary of HTTP milestone versions' has columns 'Usage in August 2024' and 'Support in August 2024', but there's no description of what usage and support mean. IMO, the meaning is far from obvious so therefore needs to be explicitly described. Stevebroshar (talk) 11:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Receiving no opposition; I removed these columns. Stevebroshar (talk) 10:45, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HTTP uses TCP and it doesn't

WRT "HTTP is a stateless application-level protocol and it requires a reliable network transport connection to exchange data between client and server. In HTTP implementations, TCP/IP connections are used using well-known ports (typically port 80 if the connection is unencrypted or port 443 if the connection is encrypted, see also List of TCP and UDP port numbers). In HTTP/2, a TCP/IP connection plus multiple protocol channels are used. In HTTP/3, the application transport protocol QUIC over UDP is used." Confusing. HTTP uses TCP/IP and HTTP/3 doesn't. But, HTTP/3 is a version of HTTP, right? If so, then this info in contradictory. Maybe the meaning is that HTTP versions before 3 use TCP. But IDK. Stevebroshar (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Versions are wonky

The article starts talking about "HTTP" which clearly is the topic. Then paragraph #4 starts "HTTP/1" with no explanation of what the heck that is. The reader is expected to know that "HTTP/1" is the wonky way that we refer to: version 1 of HTTP. It's weird so it needs to be explained. Saying "HTTP/1 was finalized and fully documented (as version 1.0)" is confusing unless you are already in the know. Should be more like: "Version 1 of the protocol, known as "HTTP/1", ... Stevebroshar (talk) 11:19, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added a versions section that describes how versions are labeled (HTTP/#). I put it early so that we define terminology/conventions before using it. Stevebroshar (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the topic?

Title is HTTP, but ... there are articles for HTTP/2 and HTTP/3, so is this article supposed to be for earlier versions? If not, where's the articles for those versions? ... I _think_ this article covers history and differences between all the versions, plus the details of .9, 1, and 1.1, but not the details of 2 and 3. Stevebroshar (talk) 11:24, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added a section called Versions that lists each version and notes that this article is more about versions before 2; that there are articles for 2 and 3 that cover them in more detail. Stevebroshar (talk) 12:46, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very few people need to know about HTTP/2 or HTTP/3, particularly their internals, and so the limited amount needed by most people can be handled by a section in this article. For people who need real detail on a protocol, we don't replace consulting the primary sources. Even fewer now need to know about HTTP 1.* and earlier.

What is needed here, in this article, is an overview of HTTP, a guide to how it is used, the format of how it handles requests, responses, document bodies and response coding, and description of the various methods within it (GET/POST etc.). That's broadly in this article, although the section ordering is poor and it's editorially weak. We don't need that long history section upfront, and a History of HTTP would be a worthwhile split. A hefty rework could be beneficial here. At >1,000 pageviews a day, it's certainly worth doing. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:41, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how "Very few people need to know about HTTP/2 or HTTP/3" is important. How many people need to know about HTTP? What does the number of people have to do with my OP (or the price of tea in China)? What does need to know have to do with it? ... I know you cannot read my mind, but my point is that I see inconsistency in the articles: there's HTTP for versions before 2 and then there's one for v2 and one for v3. When there's inconsistency, one often wonders: why? and further: should we make it consistent? You say the why is that people don't need to know about v2 and 3 and my response is that makes no sense. ... I often find that WP info is factored weirdly. The MO seems to be: this article is too long so let's split it it up into chunks; like history and a list and whatnot. IMO that's not good. Let's keep related info together. In particular, we would not benefit from factoring out History of HTTP. There are good reasons to refactor that result in smaller articles, but _just_ making it smaller is not a good reason to refactor. Stevebroshar (talk) 11:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you didn't notice or maybe you don't think I added value, but I edited the article modestly recently. The overall layout/flow was not good. It had good content, but was organized poorly. I reworked some of the high-level layout/structure to improve it. In particular, I considered moving the history section to the end. I think it's disruptive to the main thrust of the article. IMO a history section should be either first or last in an article and that placement depends on the nature of the info. If history is likely to be the primary thing folks want to know about a subject, then it should go first. But I think most would find the history of HTTP to be boring; so it should go last. Stevebroshar (talk) 11:14, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is HTTP related to HTTPS?

The article talks about HTTPS, but what exactly is the relationship to HTTP? In particular, there are versions of HTTP (.9, 1, 1.1, 2, 3). Is there an HTTPS for each? For some? Or are these things unrelated? Are there versions of HTTPS? Stevebroshar (talk) 11:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HTTPS has its own article (which is pretty clear) but could use better description in this article, to clarify the very valid questions you raise here. I'm no expert – I just use these things, and leave their implementation to others.

HTTPS, weirdly, doesn't mention rfc:2818 (2000) until late on and a History section. This is wrong – that primary source should be prominent. It's also the source (and still is) for the broad structure of HTTP / HTTPS / TLS. Which is somewhat complex, in order to make things simple otherwise (the wisdom of the old IETF at work). HTTPS is a thin (very thin) layer atop HTTP which doesn't try to replace HTTP or do the same task, but instead merely sets up the HTTP layer to use the underlying TLS to provide a secure channel for it.

Then much later on, in 2018, changes happened beneath TLS which could then allow HTTPS to become as ubiquitous as it is today; even without needing to change HTTPS itself. HTTPS 2818 was obsoleted by rfc:9110 in 2022 (and a bunch of things rolled into one document because they were now 'finished' and wouldn't need to evolve. Hmmm.), but 2818 is still the much easier read than 9110. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know there's a separate article for HTTPS. My point is that HTTP and HTTPS are highly related concepts, yet this article (HTTP) does not describe the relationship in a way that satisfies my vague understanding or my curiosity. My post is a request for someone to add this info. I guess the info I want could added to HTTP or HTTPS, or maybe, to some extent, to both. ... This bit: "HTTPS is a thin (very thin) layer atop HTTP which doesn't try to replace HTTP or do the same task, but instead merely sets up the HTTP layer to use the underlying TLS to provide a secure channel for it." is exactly what I'm wanting to know! You buried that in talk of citations for HTTPS!?!? ... I think, that your comments about citations in HTTPS belong in the talk page for that article; not this one. Stevebroshar (talk) 10:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]