Closed annevk closed 1 year ago
Mostly to keep things short. We did the same with extensible HTTP priorities using u
for urgency and i
for incremental.
I think we're fine either way but the HTTP working group usually seems to skew towards brevity.
We didn't do this for https://w3c.github.io/reporting/#header. Seems unfortunate we're not consistent here.
If this is going for TAG review, could you ask about this? It seems https://w3ctag.github.io/design-principles/#naming-is-hard is in need of an update.
Looks like the reporting header is a flat dictionary with no pre-defined keys (each key is a "name" for the given endpoint).
We're still pre-experiment so it's a good time to make changes. I'll default to long prefixes as the starting point and see if shortening is necessary. We're already using base-16 hash strings instead of base-64 for convenience over brevity.
Brevity, yes, but that's usually regarding ReallyPointlesslyLongHeaderNames
. I don't think you'd get much pushback on path
vs p
(although I agree someone will say something).
While we're looking at the naming, would match
be clearer than path
to the extent that what is being specified is the path-matching rule to be used for future requests?
Why is it
p
and notpath
? Same for the other fields.cc @mnot