Hey @spanicker; thanks for filing the review request! We discussed the explainer at today's F2F meeting in Nice and had some thoughts: - There's a lot of enthusiasm for this. Looks like a solid addition to the platform. - Which requests are eligible for getting the header? All requests? Top-level navigations? All requests to the source origin? All document requests (e.g., iframes)? Service worker script requests? All scripts? - Great to see the secure context restriction! Thanks for making that hard call in favor of user privacy. - What's the anticipated behavior of the `navigator.deviceMemory` API when the `Accept-CH = Device-Memory` header isn't set? - For consistency, do you anticipate also extending the `hardwareConcurrency` information with a similar header? - Why is sending this header restricted to requests that have the `Accept-CH` header? If the response value is restricted (e.g. to top-level navigation requests), it seems like requiring the opt-in will just add _more_ bloat for production services (like Google) that are likely to query for this data pervasively. Thanks again; looking forward to discussing this more. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/190#issuecomment-332463081
Received on Wednesday, 27 September 2017 09:24:45 UTC