Thanks for the approvals!
I'll follow up on the feedback from Mozilla and will also monitor the
information exposed through the API.
On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 2:35 PM Mike Taylor wrote:
> LGTM3
>
> On 3/16/22 9:30 AM, mkwst via Chromestatus wrote:
>
> LGTM2, but I'd second Yoav's request to pay
Yes, there are plans for such a header, join the discussion here:
https://github.com/WICG/nav-speculation/issues/138
However so far fleshing out its details was not deemed a blocker for
releasing prerender - a simple "all or nothing" opt-out seemed sufficient
as a first step.
On Wednesday,
Hey Kouhei,
Thanks for highlighting that there's an opt-out option now. I'm a little
concerned that it requires servers to avoid sending a response at all,
forcing an early decision by the infrastructure rather than allowing pages
requested this way to be prefetched by not prerendered (by,
As for usage, it's hard to gauge because it's sent by default when Android
Lite Mode is on. We're betting on the limited cases in which it's ever sent
going to zero (with the removal of Android Lite Mode) to facilitate this.
~ Ari Chivukula (Their/There/They're)
On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 6:46 AM
(1) There's a thought to pipe OS-level data saver settings into
(Sec-CH-)Save-Data, but this work is not underway as far as I know.
(2) We're not making `Save-Data` subject to `Sec-CH-Save-Data`'s
permissions policy (`CH-Save-Data`). What I'm saying is that "explicitly
requesting Sec-CH-Save-Data
LGTM3
On 3/16/22 9:30 AM, mkwst via Chromestatus wrote:
LGTM2, but I'd second Yoav's request to pay attention to the
discussion around fingerprinting. My understanding is that we're going
to be bucketing things in our implementation so as to reduce the total
surface exposed via different
LGTM2, but I'd second Yoav's request to pay attention to the discussion around
fingerprinting. My understanding is that we're going to be bucketing things in
our implementation so as to reduce the total surface exposed via different
configurations. That feels like a reasonable place to start,
LGTM3.
On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 11:08:29 AM UTC+1 Yoav Weiss wrote:
> LGTM2
>
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 9:52 PM Mike Taylor
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/15/22 4:42 PM, Nick Burris wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 4:52 PM Mike Taylor
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/9/22 10:27 AM, Nick Burris wrote:
LGTM1
Following Safari here makes sense. Please follow up on feedback from
Mozilla around fingerprintability and how we can provide reasonable advice
in the spec on how implementations can reduce its surface.
On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 7:25:04 PM UTC+1 Johannes Kron wrote:
> On Tue, Mar
LGTM2
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 9:52 PM Mike Taylor wrote:
> On 3/15/22 4:42 PM, Nick Burris wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 4:52 PM Mike Taylor
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/9/22 10:27 AM, Nick Burris wrote:
>>
>> Contact emails
>>
>> nbur...@chromium.org, rous...@chromium.org, smcgr...@chromium.org,
Thanks all for the quick resolution on this issue!
On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 8:06:53 PM UTC+2 mk...@chromium.org wrote:
> LGTM3.
>
> -mike
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 5:12 PM Mike Taylor wrote:
>
>> LGTM2
>>
>> On 3/15/22 11:20 AM, Yoav Weiss wrote:
>>
>> LGTM1 - given the early positive
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 7:57 PM Ari Chivukula wrote:
> (1) Can we omit the header when the value would be `?0` (false)?
>
> I'm fine with that, and it would be worth updating the existing client
> hint standard to allow the conflation of empty/missing values in cases
> where headers are sent by
Hi Thomas,
I'm part of the team working on Early Hints.
On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 6:58 AM BIANCONI Thomas
wrote:
> I am sad to read this...
> A new step before the deprecation of server push.
>
> I would love to see comparaison in term of performance between server push
> and early hint.
> On a
13 matches
Mail list logo
