Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] `Accept-CH` header is weird (#206)

Reminded by @ylafon's post above that this came up again during the TAG call last week.  We continued to struggle to understand the need for `Accept-CH`.  @slightlyoff noted that if we are 'running out' of headers, then isn't that a really big problem that goes far beyond client hints?  There are lots of new headers that have come into HTTP in the last few years, why aren't those opt in too.

We noted that there's a danger of sites introducing a mandatory redirect for non-bot users just to capture the CH data before rendering a page.  Some sites for example might have a very different experience when `Save-Data` is enabled (see CNN vs CNN lite).

Personally my primary concern remains that the syntax and nomenclature is confusing to developers who are used to Accept-* being a request header concept, not a response header.

-- 
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/206#issuecomment-359470916