mnot

The site mentions preferring open standards in the IETF - where is it being discussed there?

HTTP only is fundamentally disrespectful to your users. It places your needs above theirs. It assumes that your threat model is the same as theirs. There is no excuse for it in 2026.

We just bought a Cupra Tavascan; turns out VW Group Australia decided to forgo connected car features for EVs (or at least the ones we looked at).

Win.

https://httpwg.org/specs/

Oh no! We were just there a couple of months ago. I hope they find a good home for their collection.

You can bind sites to containers in safari.

Ah - I need to remember to coffee before posting in the AM.

Yes, the mismatch between the response headers and the content is a problem. Unfortunately, IME browsers often do "fix ups" of headers that make them less than reliable, this might be one of them -- it's effectively rewriting the response but failing to update all of the metadata.

The bug summary says "Chrome returns wrong status code while using range header with caches." That's indeed not a bug. I think the most concerning thing here is that the Content-Range header is obviously incorrect, so Chrome should either be updating it or producing a clear error to alert you -- which it looks like the Chrome dev acknowledges when they say "it is probably a bug that there is no AbortError exception on the read".

I might try to add some tests for this to https://cache-tests.fyi/#partial

Chrome's cache is indeed acting correctly. Effectively, it is acting as an intermediary here - your application made a partial content request, and it can satisfy it (partially), so it sends you a 206.

HTTP partial content responses need to be evaluated (like any other response) according to their metadata: servers are not required to send you exactly the ranges you request, so you need to pay attention to Content-Range and process accordingly (potentially issuing more requests).

See: https://httpwg.org/specs/rfc9110.html#status.206

No, it didn’t.

The embedded politics of the “t” in “tpm” and “tee” are super interesting and revealing. They are “trusted” only from the perspective of the developer; to the user, they represent the complete lack of trust.

I've been lusting after an Ochs und Junior for a while now -- very clever and great design. Implementing complications like perpetual calendars off of workhorse calibres is just amazing.

Today, a group of technical experts involved in the development and maintenance of the Internet and the Web, including Vint Cerf (Internet pioneer) and Tim Berners-Lee (inventor of the World Wide Web), published an open letter calling on the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General and the Secretary-General's Envoy on Technology to "uphold the bottom-up, collaborative and inclusive model of Internet governance that has served the world for the past half century" as part of the upcoming Global Digital Compact (GDC).

You think that incompetence is evenly deployed no matter what the race of the accused?

LOL. Do you know who you’re talking about?

Wait till you see the TCP RFCs…

That's quite a lineup -- any MP who associates publicly with Barnaby Joyce is making a statement.

And Monique Ryan is already on thin ice -- can't help but wonder what the people of Kooyong think about her spending her time on this.

DEVONThink rocks.

HTTP/2 was standardized in two years and 16 days.

That’s fast for standards :)

Making breaking changes to markdown is about as practical as doing it to HTML -- already existing content and mindshare give the current form massive inertia.

The is especially the case when it works for the vast majority of use cases (or can be hammered into them); ambigiuities are very visible to implementers and detail-oriented folks, but most people never see these issues, or don't care about them.

And, while it sucks that it's complicated to implement, that burden is on relatively few people. See also: the HTML Priority of Constituencies.

https://httpwg.org/specs/rfc9110.html#POST

Cache-Control and Content -Location.

Safe choice - why? My experience is that it has lots of non-conformant, weird little behaviors.

What a disappointing penalty. People have been freaking out about foreign influence in politics and voter fraud, but when there is an actual, proven and admitted fraud that has significant impact on the legitimacy of governance, it’s a tiny flick to the wrist? SMH

You can open an issue: https://github.com/protocol-registries/well-known-uris

At liftoff, the rocket kicked up huge plumes of sand and dust around the pad. In Port Isabel, about 10 miles (6 kilometers)

Oh come on, AP

FYI, a revision of this document has been approved, and should be published as an RFC soon: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpapi-rfc7807b...

Not in Australia, they won’t.

This is exactly the use case that Oblivious HTTP is being built for in he IETF.

Installed one of these last year during a Reno, love it - no more condensation, no mold, much fresher air.

So, how would that work, exactly?