Fwd: Http header including if ECMA (Javascript) is on and the version

Scott Morgan <scott@adligo.com> Sat, 15 October 2016 17:30 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 698C4129505 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 10:30:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.931
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.931 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=adligo-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WzMVp9HcTiRV for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 10:30:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7566129481 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 10:30:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bvSjK-0004Gi-Ok for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 17:26:42 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 17:26:42 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bvSjK-0004Gi-Ok@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <scott@adligo.com>) id 1bvSjG-0004F9-IV for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 17:26:38 +0000
Received: from mail-it0-f43.google.com ([209.85.214.43]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <scott@adligo.com>) id 1bvSjE-0004vH-Li for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 17:26:38 +0000
Received: by mail-it0-f43.google.com with SMTP id 4so17653882itv.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 10:26:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=adligo-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=5QpJ0tc3Q1pZ1QYUijEkavfibhVOKWVn0BSiYo/Eub4=; b=EWdw7rYb7VYD2ppW9eud4klVxSMhK8RcuFSIRyowYg6p79AFiQfwBKcpeScNP2yA1r EqqrLAoyjn85qoCQG5L5xu5WkstrJ/J2KnXYFvV8ltZJfervVzp7TYmg+2WQx42mrXFC Z7i4amgipb7US69f8Ny+xGc1YP7yIBTecQM7B7fcAbFnYlv5Uq5Ojjm/JQOm8UOdH9A2 ynY/uElpGiA9QPJt68CsL9NfuQjs8hA6E+crr+pwj7FNhXgQpcPMlMptG6edx69tWI4F R8WblKg1mlXTA3XGifNWcV9pTwyMIqY1nr0tXhS79TxnA+6PLuLJAPxz+t0OYULIls9L FnqQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=5QpJ0tc3Q1pZ1QYUijEkavfibhVOKWVn0BSiYo/Eub4=; b=OV61GhYU+C3i0dVXcW6AIFlXlc/EnnlmCjjf1jJ8mDtq+5Hw39PLucbbAC261Al1ss LCU+lTgqSdKQNzhkddUNWs0axf5dZAeIm2CZh968vykWwpkhsnS8UjkQ/N94QLK0r767 8Gm+0pHwCodRavxTyriC0/TxuIMa+PRHL7/NDHb0lrC85H1+/RyUvzPc0PaxK3ORmeI6 FxZp0eWpRbmdXRgifhqo59F7dj5n0mO1QF+BoR+cNS8f4OIQM9lmfM1yiQ8WET+MsXq3 gShZ7rNLgg2qaiUZa3Ays0/FYNaKXJKraTdPmYjR+qmyjvujp12jtgRE2hbmoVOoBQsz K7Mg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9Rkbnymv6Jo2qpyL4v4utIuuxDR1HOlG3nIEj4Vg30zS69a1WJM2w8MJt/yT9OCcanxMJO89YmIBWDeEug==
X-Received: by 10.36.147.197 with SMTP id y188mr2694976itd.17.1476552370441; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 10:26:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.79.40.4 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 10:26:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CANEdHmiCifF_s5ZGJnav=4y72KND-wxB1F7f9g8q9NYNgzOK3g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANEdHmiCifF_s5ZGJnav=4y72KND-wxB1F7f9g8q9NYNgzOK3g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Scott Morgan <scott@adligo.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 12:26:09 -0500
Message-ID: <CANEdHmj1vfroxFD7_OU9WH+OZ07TF+m0Sdk3N5QfT57VtjLoog@mail.gmail.com>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c089d80886590053eeaa3c2
Received-SPF: none client-ip=209.85.214.43; envelope-from=scott@adligo.com; helo=mail-it0-f43.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1bvSjE-0004vH-Li 1c1caf312540dca862668f39e7bef086
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Fwd: Http header including if ECMA (Javascript) is on and the version
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CANEdHmj1vfroxFD7_OU9WH+OZ07TF+m0Sdk3N5QfT57VtjLoog@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32604
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Hi All,

  I have encountered a issue with web design that appears to be part of the
http specification.
I believe that the version of ECMA (Javascript) and if it is on or off
should be included with the http request header when sent to a server.  It
might fit well into this RFC;

  https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-httpbis-client-hints-02.txt

  Perhaps a new section between 7 & 8 as follows;

8. The ECMA script (Javascript) Client Hint

The "ECMA" request header field is a number or text that
indicates the client's current ECMA implementation version. A blank ECMA
hint would indicate that ECMA script is currently turned off.
ECMA = Text [32 ASCII characters]

If ECMA occurs in a message more than once, the last value
should be used to override other occurrences.
Examples;

#1 ECMA script is turned off
ECMA:

#2 ECMA script is on the Next version
     ECMA: Next

     #3 ECMA script is on version 5.1
     ECMA: 5.1


  The basic thing that I am trying to do is determine if Javascript can be
used to assemble a html page or if it should be done server side if
Javascript is turned off.  Currently I can do this by assuming javascript
is on and then redirecting from the browser when it is off using something
like;
 <noscript><meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0; url=/tt/session.html"></
noscript>

When javascript is on I can assemble (and cache most of the repeated parts
of the page).
 i.e. profile these pages in Chrome and check the speed and cacheing;
http://mokshayoga.com/tt/tuition.html
then
http://mokshayoga.com/tt/index.html

Vs.
https://www.mokshayoga.com/chicago-yoga-policies.html
then
https://www.mokshayoga.com/chicago-yoga-events.html

Cheers,
-- 
Scott Morgan
President & CEO
Adligo Inc
http://www.adligo.com
1-866-968-1893 Ex 101
scott@adligo.com
By Appointment Only: skype:adligo1?call
https://www.linkedin.com/in/scott-morgan-21739415





-- 
Scott Morgan
President & CEO
Adligo Inc
http://www.adligo.com
1-866-968-1893 Ex 101
scott@adligo.com
By Appointment Only: skype:adligo1?call
https://www.linkedin.com/in/scott-morgan-21739415