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

@arichiv - I may be wrong, but I think the syntax @domenic is proposing is similar to the "allow" attribute syntax, so that somewhat reduces the uniqueness.

> 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.)

Embarassing, but I did not know that. Thanks @domenic for pointing that out.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/702#issuecomment-1144647532
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/702/1144647532@github.com>