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

Scott Morgan <scott@adligo.com> Fri, 07 October 2016 18:46 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 5D2511295DC for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Oct 2016 11:46:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.416
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.416 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.996, 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 ybEjKhRJVapC for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Oct 2016 11:46:38 -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 962FC1293DB for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Oct 2016 11:46:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bsa6M-0005Tz-P2 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 07 Oct 2016 18:42:34 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2016 18:42:34 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bsa6M-0005Tz-P2@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 1bsa6J-0005TE-Hh for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 07 Oct 2016 18:42:31 +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 1bsa6H-0001mw-CN for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 07 Oct 2016 18:42:30 +0000
Received: by mail-it0-f43.google.com with SMTP id z65so16018591itc.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 07 Oct 2016 11:42:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=adligo-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=G1f1jXDeZBoeAWycAIgymNGV/ysJ9Vu30W6r38JOqBM=; b=VNpNl+CZEuCpQ5W4Ijqyhqlahdf2LcEhdDgcBnBal18f4f/EJYDSliLnmnBVOGmiXV +T7EeKEKiNt/st12qgQ7OwMR1r30CLBDqw8goSqQhEAKRwhYPE5yrz7nZZ5pY018Mhw+ /4tM8mCNUjDhBuXGEgyrdAjs18ptQoldVQ/CiFmWbWFbQ4K3Xwu/8IDxnBAETKvopay0 CJa/lfW47YWLMVNgoro5SKmGJAPQsb8pPWyyQ7Nm+9c22EOXNwdyiUqqTiNBVzCmzUqB PHcYUY5jNhtBz8x+C0hGYdzWEd5YVUWU0a3z53gv0r4K6tTr5CG2wD3Ai6BrCMvATmlA 8Nkw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=G1f1jXDeZBoeAWycAIgymNGV/ysJ9Vu30W6r38JOqBM=; b=AnpShNKGwa/4unO11bosXhwTXNT2FEYCPsWLXfMEXrgw0WVlSTqX19KfE5wpk2aiWD Z/qWrQiFkOSelaHsfAVOImNK21dajNnx/BosFE9z/gKaBgXLHO9oZl5ZJCyRKFI7f4t8 Ex80xhJEiGla43h51i1C/JaKqjRf2FM3iTfiG+OO4PQqqSbFHmJa8pbGU6BIiMooXATe MjPN48iep/neMWMJ1JTPvq5nqML5xj4muKds7QCJGUC2ulmGe4kMxA5QfrXPfAboiei5 T8BodNNEEzflQYcoiFT0UHupW+j/kNuG90o17x2bskg6U0KYTm7QmMvrKDhX3OZ73Xy4 kEjA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RlP6zTXQb+a+KrgXM08NI6c3yEUTE1QKtuTzJfd128F2/77z3y4jPKR/ofMCoc4tIucmC8zTMwFherJxA==
X-Received: by 10.36.220.193 with SMTP id q184mr147412itg.17.1475865722989; Fri, 07 Oct 2016 11:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.79.40.4 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Oct 2016 11:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Scott Morgan <scott@adligo.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 13:42:02 -0500
Message-ID: <CANEdHmiCifF_s5ZGJnav=4y72KND-wxB1F7f9g8q9NYNgzOK3g@mail.gmail.com>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c0b228027bacb053e4ac464
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 1bsa6H-0001mw-CN ca9d39be3101989c634cb9d4518ee251
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Http header including if ECMA (Javascript) is on and the version
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CANEdHmiCifF_s5ZGJnav=4y72KND-wxB1F7f9g8q9NYNgzOK3g@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32523
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