Re: [SRI] Towards v1 - do we need error reporting?

I think that could be argued for any erro reporting mechanism. People
like Neil can jump in here, but I can attest that being able to do the
error reporting in a very non obtrusive manner (via the header only
and a simple listener) was very useful for CSP deployment. Based on
that experience, I would argue that this would be useful here too.

On 10 December 2014 at 16:20, Brian Smith <> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Brad Hill <> wrote:
>> +1 on error reporting.  Especially as this is an experiment, I think it will
>> be important to allow individual content providers to gather and report on
>> their experiences with the spec, not just rely on browser vendor telemetry.
> I think it is useful to be notified of errors. But, it isn't clear to
> me why a SRI-specific error reporting mechanism is a good idea. I
> would be just as interested in knowing if my CDN was returning 404s,
> or if DNS failed to resolve for a CDN host, or other things. If at all
> reasonable, I think it would be better to create an error
> handling/reporting mechanism that is more general, so that every spec
> doesn't need to create its own reporting mechanism from scratch or by
> (effectively) copy/pasting the CSP one.
> In particular, perhaps all we need is a way of doing something like this:
>     <link rel=network-failure-handler
> href="//">
> Which would indicate a script that is loaded and executed when a
> network failure occurs, where the script can register an event handler
> that will process events for every failed load (including, in
> particular, the load that causes it to be loaded).
> Cheers,
> Brian

Received on Thursday, 11 December 2014 04:40:42 UTC