Re: [ServiceWorker] A header-based SW installation (#685)

I don't really like the idea of having in this case the `foo` service worker specify the exact path to the `font-service` service worker script. It seems to me that conceptually the script URL of a service worker should be an implementation detail of that site, and not part of its public API. But maybe that's just my mental model being wrong. 

And specifically for the [fonts usecase](https://github.com/mkruisselbrink/navigator-connect/blob/gh-pages/explainer.md#solving-the-fonts-problem), allowing subresource headers to register a ServiceWorker is what makes this all work transparently. I'm not entirely sure what we would gain by requiring any website that wants to benefit from a fonts service worker to explicitly specify this. Shouldn't websites that don't have their own service worker also be able to benefit from services they rely on having service workers?

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/slightlyoff/ServiceWorker/issues/685#issuecomment-95292584