+Ilya for the client hint. +Josh Peek from GitHub for the question WAY down at the bottom. On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 4:04 AM, Devdatta Akhawe <dev.akhawe@gmail.com> wrote: > For request headers, how about a "CH-Context: ServiceWorker"? That makes > more sense to me than "Service-Worker: script" and it also follows the > client hint format. This seems like a reasonable way of pushing the data up to the server, and it's probably useful for server-side response prioritization regardless: Ilya? WDYT? > For response, since SW shouldn't wait on CSP2.1, how about a simple header > that someone can send to disable all SWs registered on the domain? > "ServiceWorker: None" or something like that? There's no reason this would need to block on CSP v.Next if we think it's the right thing to do. The Service Worker spec can define a new directive, and we can merge it into CSP whenever we get around to it. That's what Manifest is doing right now, in fact: http://w3c.github.io/manifest/#content-security-policy > Although, I do wonder: is it really that hard to ask github to let devs set > content type sometimes? Maybe. Josh? :) -mikeReceived on Thursday, 24 July 2014 09:03:09 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:39 UTC