W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2016

Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-client-hints-00 feedback

From: Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 14:32:25 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKRe7JHN7NX-PgEtyzU0Xs2Aeecd1NUzEKeRxfGwtW8_OFaDOg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 6:23 AM, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
wrote:

> > Hmm, no. Physical width != display width. For example, on a "2x" screen
> a 100 (CSS) px resource has an intrinsic size of 200px. FWIW, this language
> follows CSS spec, and I'd prefer to keep it aligned.
> >
>
> I think the point is that the browser seems to be telling the server how
> big a requested image will be, which is ...presumptive. What it's actually
> describing is the screen space it intends to fill with said image.
>
> Unless "resource" means something else in the context of a HTML document?
> Since this is a HTTP spec, I took it to mean "thing at the other end of a
> URL."
>
> Perhaps just one extra word is enough: "...indicates the desired resource
> width..."
>
That's fair. Fixed.

> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> 10.  IANA Considerations
> >>
> >>    o  Header field name: DPR
> >>    o  Applicable protocol: HTTP
> >>    o  Status: standard
> >>    o  Author/Change controller: IETF
> >>    o  Specification document(s): [this document]
> >>
> >> ...insert section # (applies to all definitions)
> >
> >
> > Hmm, does our tooling allow us to auto-generate these? =/
> >
>
> Yep; you label the heading thus:
>
> ### Foo Bar {#foo-bar}
>
> And refer to it:
>
> ...described in {{foo-bar}}...
>
Ah, good to know - thanks! Looks like Julian already beat me to it..
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2016 21:33:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 21:33:36 UTC