W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webappsec@w3.org > February 2014

Re: Removal of the note about extensions

From: Mitar <mmitar@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 22:39:37 -0800
Message-ID: <CAKLmikM1z21EmUTFAtwB=J1veyD_9CfzUn1j+YBkFqdVabbveA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike West <mkwst@chromium.org>
Cc: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, Mike Pomax Kamermans <pomax@nihongoresources.com>, "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>

> With this in mind, I'm inclined to add a non-normative note to the spec
> along the lines of "Note that user agents are encouraged to allow
> third-party add-ons and JavaScript bookmarklets to bypass policy
> enforcement, either implicitly or based on the user's preference."

Why reinventing the wheel? RFC 2119 here what SHOULD NOT in original note mean:

"Enforcing a policy SHOULD NOT interfere with the operation of
user-supplied scripts such as third-party user-agent add-ons and
JavaScript bookmarklets."

SHOULD NOT: "This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that
there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the
particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full
implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed
before implementing any behavior described with this label."

In this sens this directly addresses Cox objections: if there valid
reasons (compromised extensions, user preference, liability reasons,
special UAs (kiosk mode)) UAs are allowed to interfere with the
operation, but UAs have to understand the consequences.

Personally, I would have there MUST NOT, but I agree that there are
use cases, as explained by Cox, where UAs should behave differently.
So I think SHOULD NOT is a very good compromise here, already covering
what Cox is pointing out. I do not understand what is a problem with
SHOULD NOT terminology? It is already a widely established
terminology. I think that starting to use terminology like
"encouraged" will introduce more issues interpreting it. RFC 2119 does
not have "encouraged".

Furthermore, just leaving previous note in means that there is less
things which will change between 1.0 and 1.1.



Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2014 06:40:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:37 UTC