- From: Domenic Denicola <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 09:45:08 -0700
- To: w3ctag/design-reviews <design-reviews@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
- Message-ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/564/921063032@github.com>
If we use Origin-Agent-Cluster for this purpose then it will effectively become tri-state instead of boolean: - `Origin-Agent-Cluster: ?1` means "I would really like an origin-keyed agent cluster, ideally with a separate process, because I have done measurements and that helps my site perform better, and I don't use `document.domain`" - `Origin-Agent-Cluster: ?0` means "I definitely use `document.domain` and so I cannot be put into an origin-keyed agent cluster and need to share a process with other same-site cross-origin pages" - Missing header means "I don't use `document.domain`, so I will go into an origin-keyed agent cluster. But, it's up to the browser to apply heuristics and determine whether that means a separate process or a shared process; I have not done any measurements to figure out whether a separate process is a good tradeoff for me". I think this is reasonable, although a bit subtle. Having a separate switch specifically for `document.domain` is more explicit, but it creates a 2x2 matrix where one of the entries is an error: - `Origin-Agent-Cluster: ?0` + `Document-Policy: document-domain=?0` means heuristics for process/separate agent cluster - `Origin-Agent-Cluster: ?0` + `Document-Policy: document-domain=?1` means shared process/shared agent cluster - `Origin-Agent-Cluster: ?1` + `Document-Policy: document-domain=?0` means separate process/separate agent cluster - `Origin-Agent-Cluster: ?1` + `Document-Policy: document-domain=?1` is a conflict and we'd have to pick one of those to win (but in this 2x2 matrix version, everything is really a boolean; there is no tri-state "boolean".) -- 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/564#issuecomment-921063032
Received on Thursday, 16 September 2021 16:45:21 UTC