- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2018 09:31:21 +0200
- To: Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com>
- Cc: Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin@google.com>, HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 6 Jun 2018, at 8:14 pm, Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com> wrote: > > > • The available-values are single numbers, and the spec says that a request for 350 matches the next smaller number. > This is kind of what I anticipated, but maybe Ilya has some thoughts? > > I think this is something we should defer to the implementers. Some sites have very stringent requirements about image quality and would not accept upscaling (e.g. think product images), whereas others might be open to it and might explicitly choose this route when save-data hint is present. In Variants, the definition of a particular content negotiation mechanism is responsible for defining the algorithm for selecting a result (or results); see <https://httpwg.org/http-extensions/draft-ietf-httpbis-variants.html#define>. Defering to the implementers would mean that each cache would behave differently, so no interop and content folks would be (justifiably) grumpy about this. -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 8 June 2018 07:31:52 UTC