To elaborate on one of Ilya's points, if I may: > Progressive enhancement is a thing — e.g. ServiceWorker. Does the TAG believe that progressive enhancement is a pattern that we should discourage on the web? How did we rationalize SW? To wit, CH is an optimisation; when the headers aren't in the initial request, the server can choose to degrade the image quality or use a bit more bandwidth, depending on its goals. From the end user standpoint, the page still loads -- just not quite as optimally (in some dimension). So, I don't understand the seeming conclusion above that redirection is inevitable. The core use case IMO for CH is allowing intermediaries -- servers, reverse proxies, server-side software that isn't deeply integrated into the content -- to serve the optimal response without modifying content. People developing those products tend to understand the perf penalty of an extra round trip; they have other, reasonable options (as per above), and don't have to redirect, because again, it's an optimisation. Popping up a level - what solution is the TAG proposing to its concerns? Note that removing Accept-CH means that CH would be considered as "passive fingerprinting." -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/206#issuecomment-367233113
Received on Wednesday, 21 February 2018 07:08:44 UTC