Merging Client Hints Infrastructure into HTML (and FETCH) Standards

[arichiv]

Hello HTML (and FETCH) people, the Client Hints Infrastructure Draft owners want to know if the following work would be welcome:

1. Merging the concepts defined in Section 3 and the patching defined in Section 4 into HTML.
2. Merging the concepts defined in Section 5 and the patching defined in Section 6 into FETCH.
3. Keeping the entire Feature Registry in WICG or including consensus parts in HTML while maintaining the rest in WICG.

I'm able to do the actual heavy lifting in PRs, but wanted to check if there was an issue before starting.

cc: @yoavweiss @miketaylr

[arichiv]

@annevk for comment

[domenic]

Do you have a sense of whether the proposed parts meet the requirements in https://whatwg.org/working-mode#additions ? (Or maybe @annevk is the best person to answer that and that's why you're asking...)

[arichiv]

Thanks for linking that! Yeah, I'm looking to see if there's support before starting.

[yoavweiss]

/cc @achristensen07 @bdekoz

[achristensen07]

The feature registry seems to contain the controversial parts, so merging the concepts of client hints seems fine. Has anyone proposed limiting client hints to transport protocols with compressed headers to reduce network bytes?

[arichiv]

That's an interesting idea; I don't believe the proposal or implementation incorporate it though.

[annevk]

As long as WICG/client-hints-infrastructure#100 remains unresolved I'm rather uncomfortable adding support. Client Hints rather drastically changes what information gets send across origins and it's not clear to me that a full accounting has been done.