Re: Request for help on follow up items from the last call

On Feb 12, 2019, at 4:06 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> 
> Such general questions are more appropriate on the mailing list because the working group needs to keep some discipline over its issues list. If issues were a way for people to ask for general / background information on our specs, our issues list would quickly become unfit for its primary purpose -- discussing issues with the specifications we're developing. In particular, I (as WG chair) have a strong interest in protecting my editors (who are inevitably time-poor) from an overly large issues list, as that tends to remove their motivation to contribute.

I believe on our last call we (PING) had specifically directed Pete to raise GitHub issues list because some WGs seem to have an increasingly strong preference for feedback via GitHub (and I believe the other issue opened is more specific). However, I do think discussing the motivating data on Clients-Hints usage on the mailing list would be preferable if HTTPWG is open to it, since it is more of a general topic.

So, thanks Mark for the re-direction and thanks Pete for following up to get the question to the right place.

The other part of my interest for background/motivating data was around the `User-Agent` and `Lang` replacements specifically. If we understood the particular use cases for different parts of a User-Agent string, we could do a better job evaluating what should (or shouldn’t) be exposed where. That’s more specific to Mike West’s proposed draft, and I don’t know if there is a WG discussing that yet or not. What's the right venue for discussion of that?

Cheers,
Nick