Re: [webkit-dev] Client Hints

2015-04-28 Thread Yoav Weiss
(Re) Posting Ilya's response from April 24th, since his response wasn't
published on the mailing list archive for some reason.

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Yoav Weiss y...@yoav.ws wrote:

 +Ilya for spec related questions.

 Also, I forgot to mention it, but my intention is to implement the RW and
 DPR hints first, and see about the MD and RQ hints (which are newer to the
 spec) later on.


Yes, we should scope this discussion to RW and DPR. This is consistent with
Blink implementation [1], and to keep this thread focused I'll skip the
comments on MD/RQ/etc. That said, happy to discuss those in a separate
thread :)


 On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:

 Is the Internet-Draft for this planned to become a standards-track RFC?
 Is there an IETF Working Group that has adopted it?

 Yes, and as part of the HTTP WG. /cc mnot

 On the spec contents: I’m wary of the fact that the header names are very
 opaque. That’s not in the HTTP tradition, where header names are generally
 human-readable. I am skeptical that the HTTP WG would be satisfied with
 these header names as-is.

 I believe the intent with the short names was to minimize impact on the
 network, since the headers will be sent with every sub-resource requests
 once the server has opted-in. With that said, you're not the first to make
 that comment, so I'm open to modify that, especially since HTTP/2 makes
 this consideration irrelevant.


Uncompressed bytes on the wire add up quickly and short names are
consistent with general policy of keeping those at a minimum. I don't
believe this is counter to HTTP WG goals or guidance. That said, I'm not
opposed to renaming them if there is a strong preference one way or another.

 I know spec feedback may be off-topic for an implementation thread, but
 I’m not sure where else to send it since it’s not clear if this
 Internet-Draft is associated with a working group.

 Spec feedback is most welcome. The best place to send it is the GitHub
 repo https://github.com/igrigorik/http-client-hints/issues.


Big +1 to that. This is all great feedback, thanks Maciej.

ig

[1]
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/blink-dev/vOgv-TqefsA/o_fEsy8RFcwJ
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev


Re: [webkit-dev] Client Hints

2015-04-28 Thread Yoav Weiss
And (Re) Posting Mark's response from April 25th, for the same reasons.

 On 24 Apr 2015, at 2:32 pm, Ilya Grigorik i...@igvita.com wrote:

 On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
 Is the Internet-Draft for this planned to become a standards-track RFC?
Is there an IETF Working Group that has adopted it?
 Yes, and as part of the HTTP WG. /cc mnot

To be clear, it hasn't been adopted yet, but we have discussed it, and I
suspect we will at some point in the not-too-distant future.

 On the spec contents: I’m wary of the fact that the header names are
very opaque. That’s not in the HTTP tradition, where header names are
generally human-readable. I am skeptical that the HTTP WG would be
satisfied with these header names as-is.
 I believe the intent with the short names was to minimize impact on the
network, since the headers will be sent with every sub-resource requests
once the server has opted-in. With that said, you're not the first to make
that comment, so I'm open to modify that, especially since HTTP/2 makes
this consideration irrelevant.

Regarding the concern about the WG feeling — actually, there's a strong
preference for shorter names, as long as it really is something that's
going to be on the wire a lot. Roy in particular gets grouchy at long names.

Cheers,


--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev