Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] ServiceWorker static routing API (Issue #863)

Hi @domenic - thanks for that clarification.  As with a number of other current reviews, in that case, I'd like to express concerns that we are building new capabilities on top of shaky ground – that is, existing specifications that do not have consensus and do not have multiple implementations across multiple browsers.
  
Further to that, we have another open review, [Compression Dictionary Transport
](https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/877) which also makes use of "URL Patterns" but [does not appear](https://github.com/WICG/compression-dictionary-transport/blob/main/README.md#dictionary-options-header) to reference the URLPattern spec.
  
Could there be an option here to work together to specify static routing without relying on URLPattern, or to specify a fall-back?

Alternatively, [is there a way forward](https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/61#issuecomment-1527486428) to bring URLPattern forward for standardization that could unblock multiple implementations?

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/863#issuecomment-1706074101
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/863/1706074101@github.com>