W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: Unifying & standardizing X-Moz & X-Purpose headers

From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 12:23:09 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTims79ZLaNsSH-kPgx9fyYZ+F4wGH5+Tvo0ejj6A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gavin Peters (蓋文彼德斯) <gavinp@chromium.org>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
WebKit would have implemented "X-Moz: prefetch" along with the
prefetch feature if the header didn't have such a Mozilla-specific


2010/9/23 Gavin Peters (蓋文彼德斯) <gavinp@chromium.org>:
> Hi,
> I'm experimenting with prefetching in chrome & webkit, and I have some
> concerns I wanted to bring to the attention of the HTTP wg.
> Right now the prefetch feature in Firefox adds a nonstandard header:
>  X-Moz: prefetch
> to requests that originate either from <link> elements or the Link: header.
> Safari generates previews of web pages for its startup page and new
> tab page. =C2=A0The requests that generate that view are a full page load
> - Hide quoted text -
> (javascript is run, subresources are loaded...), and it includes the
> header:
>  X-Purpose: preview
> Chrome dev channel and beta right now include an experimental
> implementation of prefetching, which partially follows on the WebKit
> implementation of prefetching.  The WebKit prefetching actually puts
> no extra headers at all in its requests.
> Some google searching reveals that some webmasters use these request
> headers to do things like 404 prefetching requests (a pretty
> legitimate thing to do), and to serve pages without analytics to
> Safari previews.
> Given that http requests are already happening with these markers, and
> that there's three incompatible & inconsistant practices for
> specifying this activity,
> how should we proceed?  I think it would be best if there was one
> header for conveying purposes such as prefetch, preview, etc....
> Immediately, I think a variation on the Safari practice, and a header
> such as:
>  Purpose: preview
> or
>  Purpose: prefetch
> Is likely to best serve everybody's interest.
> Do we agree that this is a useful thing to specify, and if so, what is
> the best way to proceed if we agree?
> - Gavin
Received on Thursday, 23 September 2010 19:29:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:13:48 UTC