- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 23:12:53 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21854 --- Comment #26 from Adrian Bateman [MSFT] <adrianba@microsoft.com> --- (In reply to David Dorwin from comment #25) > (In reply to Adrian Bateman [MSFT] from comment #24) > > I'm not sure we should change the spec unless we know of specific > > use cases where we don't want to limit it to this. We could wait to see if > > implementation experience suggests this is actually needed? I think we need > > to specify what to do if you call update() and it is not expected. Should it > > be silently ignored or should you get a state error. > > Why do UAs/CDMs need to be "expecting" an update() call? I assumed they > would just always process the input and decide what to do? > > As for use cases, an app could proactively provide a renewal message, a new > key, etc. I imagine there might be some more complex uses cases where > operations need to be performed on the session as well. I have filed Bug 24081 to track this issue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 12 December 2013 23:12:54 UTC