| 01:32 | <dlrobertson> | Why does https://wicg.github.io/background-fetch/#header-syntax and https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#simple-range-header-value only handle a subset of RFC 7233? |
| 01:34 | <dlrobertson> | Opened https://github.com/whatwg/fetch/issues/1450 before I realized background fetch didn't handle the suffix-byte-range-spec |
| 01:35 | <dlrobertson> | I didn't really have a strong reason for opening the issue... I was mostly just curious |
| 07:27 | <annevk> | dlrobertson: Jake Archibald hopefully remembers |
| 12:21 | <dlrobertson> | I'll look at the commit message and PR thread... maybe there will be useful info there as well |
| 12:45 | <Noam Rosenthal> | annevk: Fetch build isn't passing because a few RFCs were merged into HTTP-SEMANTICS, I posted a fix: https://github.com/whatwg/fetch/pull/1451 |
| 12:55 | <annevk> | dlrobertson: if there's nothing there I'd be inclined to treat this as a bug; it's definitely a problem that we don't call it out in a note or some such |
| 12:55 | <annevk> | dlrobertson: I also thought that instead of "simple" we could use "single" or "single-range" to describe the semantics more clearly once we adjust this |
| 12:55 | <annevk> | Noam Rosenthal: thanks! |
| 12:56 | <dlrobertson> | dlrobertson: I also thought that instead of "simple" we could use "single" or "single-range" to describe the semantics more clearly once we adjust this |
| 12:56 | <dlrobertson> | I'd seen your note about renaming that, but hadn't thought of anything |
| 12:59 | <annevk> | Noam Rosenthal: I'm going to take that PR and adjust it a bit, I think that'll be quicker than review |