On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws> wrote: > A static set of "Prefer" headers would mean that (very much like "Accept") > in case that content varies on `Prefer`, intermediate caches would have to > maintain ~ a copy per UA. The damage can be minimized if UAs coordinate to > make sure that similar `Prefer` values are *identical* between the > different UAs. > > That's not *awful*, but in terms of caching, a separate header name is > better, at least until `key > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fielding-http-key-02>` becomes a thing. > > Is "Upgrade-Insecure-Requests: yes pleasssssse" much worse than "Prefer: > upgrade-insecure-requests"? > It sounds like there's general agreement that `Prefer` is the right semantic to use here, but there's concern (and disagreement) about whether or not the caching impact a) exists, b) overrides the semantic value. If there's a clear solution for the caching problem (`key`), and we're just waiting for it to be deployed, then I'd prefer `Prefer`. :) Is that a crazy stance? Are there sincere impacts to the Internets that I'm missing? If not, I'll update the spec to `Prefer: secure-transport`. -mike
Received on Tuesday, 7 July 2015 12:10:58 UTC