- From: Tom Hume <Tom.Hume@futureplatforms.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:33:43 +0000
- To: MWI BPWG Public <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Sorry, have I explained myself poorly again? I just gave you an example of a case where degrading HTTPS would be OK from the content providers POV. I can *guarantee* you it exists - I was that content provider. If there's one, there's probably others. And I'm not saying this means it's OK to routinely degrade security... On 20 Jan 2009, at 23:28, Luca Passani wrote: > > > No. Those cases do not exist. > > I don't think that solving a problem that still does not exist and > probably never will deserves any of my time. > > What keeps me here is just checking that W3C does not demolish the > foundations of the web. > > Luca > > Tom Hume wrote: >> >> On 20 Jan 2009, at 22:54, Luca Passani wrote: >> >>> wrt Whitelist, this is a problem for transcoder vendors to solve. >>> They may decide to create a common sire where companies can >>> authorize all transcoders to break their HTTPS logins in one fell >>> swoop. >> >> Is there nothing we can do about this, particularly if it's in the >> interest of content providers? >> >>> Anyway, the fact that one content provider approves that one >>> transcoder breaks HTTPS on its site, does not mean that the same >>> content provider is OK with all transcoders breaking HTTPS on its >>> site. >> >> >> I completely agree; in fact I think I pointed that out :) But it >> does mean that such cases exist. >> > > > -- Future Platforms Ltd e: Tom.Hume@futureplatforms.com t: +44 (0) 1273 819038 m: +44 (0) 7971 781422 company: www.futureplatforms.com personal: tomhume.org
Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2009 23:34:20 UTC