- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 23:35:30 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15562 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC| |ian@hixie.ch Resolution| |WONTFIX --- Comment #2 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 2012-02-06 23:35:30 UTC --- Manifests in data: URLs makes no sense, since they couldn't be updated, so the cache would never ever be updated even if the server went away altogether, or changed ownership, or whatnot. Not being able to reference a secure URL from an insecure manifest is a problem, true. It's not really clear to me why you'd bother with encrypting a library if the rest isn't encrypted though. So I don't think this is compelling enough to relax the restriction. The restriction is primarily intended to protect against the opposite case, an https:// manifest using unencrypted resources. -- Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 6 February 2012 23:37:24 UTC