Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] Incubation: Inline Integrity (Issue #1135)

mikewest left a comment (w3ctag/design-reviews#1135)

> The `alternate solutions` considered for this incubation is not mentioned in the explainer. Can you please add a section on this structured as Alternative → Pros → Cons → Reason for rejection. That makes the reasoning more transparent to external reviewers.

Skimming through the discussion starting at https://github.com/WICG/signature-based-sri/issues/10#issuecomment-2591268614, I think the only alternatives I seriously considered were different spellings of the attributes. I'm happy to add some thoughts to that end in somewhere.

> The explainer mainly focuses on the developer's benefits and how this integrity mechanism will fulfil their needs. This is ok; however, the explainer should also elaborate on `end-use problem` and explicitly mention how the proposal benefits the end-users. This also should be addressed.

I expect I'll follow the [explainer explainer's boilerplate](https://www.w3.org/TR/explainer-explainer/#security-user-benefit) here, and find somewhere reasonable to paste the helpful text it suggests: "This feature is meant to improve website security, which reduces the frequency of breaches that compromise user data.".

Do you think additional justification of user benefit is necessary?

---

Otherwise, it sounds like y'all are directionally satisfied with this proposal? Or are there some details of the approach and/or spec on which you have feedback?

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1135#issuecomment-3376249806
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1135/3376249806@github.com>