Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] Markup based Client Hints delegation for third-party content (Issue #702)

> 2\. Support quotes (like PermissionsPolicy HTTP Header)

This is not actually like the PermissionsPolicy HTTP header, right? Since the header is a structured header and thus must use double quotes, not the single quotes you show here.

> 4\. Require http-equiv accept-ch and add delegate-ch

So, the difference between meta name and meta http-equiv is a real mess already, but I think this proposal makes it even worse. In general how things are supposed to work is:

- `http-equiv` should be used for all "pragmas" that modify the processing model
- `name` should be used for all "document-level metadata" that does *not* modify any processing model
- To avoid any confusion, people should try to never put HTTP header-like things in `http-equiv`, despite the name. (Because of the 7 specified pragma directives, only 1 has equivalent behavior to the corresponding HTTP header. So either adding something equivalent to the HTTP header, or something non-equivalent with the same name, just makes things worse.)

This is not really well-followed, e.g. `name="referrer"` definitely modifies the processing model, and arguably so does `name="color-scheme"`. But those cases were not discussed with the HTML community before they were implemented everywhere. So since you're asking ahead of time this time, maybe you're interested in sticking to the desired architecture.

So with that in mind, from a HTML perspective the best idea might be something like (5), a `http-equiv` value whose value space allows you to do both things at once, but definitely doesn't look like any header syntax?

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/702#issuecomment-1143680791
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/702/1143680791@github.com>