- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 15:20:40 +0200
- To: Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@gmail.com>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2016-10-07 20:43, Ilya Grigorik wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de > <mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de>> wrote: > > "When a client receives Accept-CH, or if it is capable of processing > the HTML response and finds an equivalent HTML meta element, it > SHOULD append the Client-Hint header fields that match the > advertised field-values to the header list of all subsequent > requests. For example, based on Accept-CH example above, a user > agent could append DPR, Width, Viewport-Width, and Downlink header > fields to all subresource requests initiated by the page constructed > from the response. Alternatively, a client can treat advertised > support as a persistent origin preference and append same header > fields on all future requests initiated to and by the resources > associated with that origin." > > The "SHOULD" IMHO is problematic, as it isn't clear from the > following text to what URIs it applies? All of the same origin? Only > the same resource? Subresources? > > > It was left intentionally vague to allow for flexibility as different > UAs/clients experiment with how and when to send these hints. Some > additional context > here: https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-client-hints-02.html#security-considerations > > Open to suggestions for how to word it better though :-) Well, we can't have a SHOULD without saying to what it applies to... Maybe just say that getting Accept-CH for a URI implies that the server would like to see the listed client hints on all requests for subresources of that URI (with a proper definition of what that is), and then leave it at that. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 13 October 2016 13:21:21 UTC