Re: CSP formal objection.

* Brad Hill wrote:
>Since we all agree about the PoC, but could argue for another few months
>about what exactly it means, would everyone be able to live with the
>following text:
>"When considering interactions between a resource's policy and
>user-initiated changes to that resource, for example through extension
>mechanisms or bookmarklets, user agent implementors SHOULD take in to
>account the HTML5 Priority of Constituencies (link) when determining
>whether to enforce or report on a policy violation that would be generated
>by such changes."

That is not acceptable, starting with the fact that the document in
question is a Working Draft that has not been updated since 2007 and
there would be problems making normative reference to a Working Draft
that is not likely to advance and does not have technical requirements.
Björn Höhrmann · ·
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 ·
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · 

Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2014 13:40:37 UTC