- From: Andrew Betts <andrew.betts@ft.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 15:46:38 +0100
- To: Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>
- Cc: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>, "public-fixing-appcache@w3.org" <public-fixing-appcache@w3.org>
On 24 Sep 2012, at 15:31, Jake Archibald wrote: > I think we're going off in the wrong direction a bit. A captive > portal, as described by the spec, is one that issues a redirect to > http://10.0.0.1/pay-for-wifi or whatever. They only do this for http > urls, else they get the cert issue. > > Being able to treat either of these cases as "offline" is a good idea > (which is what happens now with FALLBACK), even better if it were > optional (eg for genuine login redirects a la Gmail), even better if > we could feedback to the user that we'd detected a captive portal & > avoided it. > > Anything that rewrites response content to display a portal without > issuing a redirect is an old problem, solutions to it should not be > appcache exclusive, therefore they're out-of-scope. Besides, I think > the solution is https. OK, point taken. -- ------------------------------ This email was sent by a company owned by Pearson plc, registered office at 80 Strand, London WC2R 0RL. Registered in England and Wales with company number 53723.
Received on Monday, 24 September 2012 14:47:18 UTC