Martin Thomson

You proposed this: ``` xml ``` The `relative` and `section` attributes should be replaced with a `section="3.2"`. You managed to get what you wanted, but you did that by abusing...

This is tied in with the `Use-As-Dictionary` field and the matching functionality that is associated with that. I'd like to see this proven out for that feature before committing changes...

Having been involved with server push and a number of other features that were good on paper, I'm extremely cautious about claims of advantage for anything in this approximate area....

What David said. I don't see any point in continuing to cater to unsecured protocols. In the earlier example Ben provided, the CNAME that the mix of secure and insecure...

So I think that the volcano stages are pretty good as a general framework. However, trying to tie in the orthogonal state of whether someone shipped something creates problems. So...

I was specifically looking for answers from others, because it was not clear that there was agreement about the purpose of the feature. @krgovind, do you truly believe that this...

What I'm looking for is some sort of consensus about the purpose.

That link is broken, but I found the file [here](https://github.com/GoogleChrome/related-website-sets/blob/main/RWS-Submission_Guidelines.md). I would recommend a specification for this. See [Section 5.1 of RFC 8615](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8615#section-5.1) for details on what a specification should...

@johnwilander if Safari has one use for this and Chrome another, with Brave disabling it entirely, is that a good outcome? Sites won't be able to rely on a consistent...

Responding to @krgovind: > [...] our proposed policy includes the requirement that "Domains must share a common group identity that is easily discoverable by users" This is exactly the point...