On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Jonathan Kew <jfkth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So the "negotiation" is handled within the browser, on the basis of the > information provided in the CSS stylesheet, *prior* to sending any request > for an actual font resource. > > I'm not advocating that we don't do the css bits too. That's all cool. Jonas's suggestion was also adding an appropriate accept bit. > Given that this is the established model, defined in the spec for > @font-face and implemented all over the place, I don't see much value in > adding things to the Accept header for the actual font resource request. > intermediaries, as I mentioned before, are a big reason. It provides an opt-in opportunity for transcoding where appropriate (and I'm not claiming I'm up to speed on the ins and outs of font coding). y'all can do what you want - but using protocol negotiation in addition to the css negotiation is imo a good thing for the web. > FWIW, when DNT was being created HTTP request header byte count seemed to > be a pretty strong concern, which (AIUI) was why we ended up with DNT: 1 > rather than something clearer like DoNotTrack: true. > > I know - but I disagree pretty strongly with the analysis there. The impact is extremely marginal... and trust me, I'm very interested in HTTP performance :) _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
