+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? :)
-mike