- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 14:40:08 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27436 --- Comment #9 from Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> --- (In reply to Anne from comment #5) > Well not completely right, or do both have a setter in Blink? Only charset has a setter. (In reply to Henri Sivonen from comment #6) > What does the setter do? It's propagated to a TextResourceDecoder where it looks like it will prevent further checks for <meta charset>, but I've been unable to produce a simple test case where it has any observable effect. I'm betting on removal, in which case it doesn't matter. > Is it known that if the property sniffs as existing, sites won't try to use > the setter (i.e. having it as getter-only would be safe)? All I know is that the usage of the setter is in the range where it's plausible that removal would work, currently ~0.01% of page views. In my experience, only actually attempting removal will tell you if it's safe or not. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 26 November 2014 14:40:15 UTC