Re: Housekeeping: Closing ISSUE-140 (concrete/explicit list of exceptions)

Hi Jonathan,

in the meantime, there is a revised proposal by the browsers on the 
table. Basic ideas:
- Unchanged: 3 types of exceptions: site-wide, web-wide, and explict lists
- New: Sites are responsible for UI and for determining exceptions
- New: Browsers are free to validate/adjust exceptions based on user 
- New: No atomicity requirement anymore
- New: We added a query API where a site can validate whether its 
"essential" exceptions are still present
      in order to double-check that it is still working as intended.

Some advantages (from my personal perspective) are:
- Sites can provide a consistent experience
- Browsers can now freely manage preferences as determined by their users
- Sites can store a broad range of exceptions ("these are my 30 third 
parties" while later querying a subset "I need these 10 to work").

We have an action pending to elaborate this new proposal (AFAIR on Ian 
Fette). Feel free to comment once we obtain text documenting it in more 


On 08/10/2012 03:20, Jonathan Mayer wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 at 12:42 AM, Matthias Schunter (Intel 
> Corporation) wrote:
>> Hi Jonathan,
>> thanks for the feedback!
>> As part of the other response, you said that you disagree with the 
>> all-or-nothing approach of the API.
>> I agree that this needs discussion.
> Yes.  Is there a separate issue for whether exception requests are 
> all-or-nothing?  If not, there should be.

Received on Monday, 8 October 2012 07:33:01 UTC