On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 at 20:14, David G. Johnston <[email protected]> wrote: > Definite screenshot-2 preference for me. Though I do wonder just looking at > the image whether the reserved stuff even needs a table. The first row is > not even a parameter but a guideline, and the second pertains to testing > which seems like it can be incorporated separately. I'd either go for just > one table or two separate tables but not the combined variant in > screenshot-1. I'm not seeing an advantage to be gained by the integration.
Agreed. I expect maybe we'll reserve more protocol extensions in the future (either the improved grease, or when we'll stop supporting an extension at some point). Regarding _pq_.[name], I agree with David that I think it would be better to make that part of the introductory paragraph.
