- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2026 19:51:15 +1100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
It's a good question. It's more interoperable to define it as part of a concrete, specific protocol; it's more reusable to make it generic. Given that this code is needed because reuse caused confusion, I'm inclined towards the former, but I'm not against the latter (though the definition can always be updated expanded if need be). What do others think? > On 26 Feb 2026, at 5:58 pm, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > > Am 24.02.2026 um 00:19 schrieb Mark Nottingham: >> (without my 'chair' hat on) >> I'd like the WG to consider adoption. See here for context: >> https://github.com/WICG/nav-speculation/issues/138 <https://github.com/ WICG/nav-speculation/issues/138> >> Cheers, >> ... > > I have one question: > > "A preliminary request is one that contains a Sec-Purpose header field [FETCH] with the value "prefetch"." > > Could this be made a bit more generic, so that it is not directly tied to a specific request field? > > Best regards, Julia > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 26 February 2026 08:51:25 UTC