Re: CSP formal objection.

There is also the unfortunate reality that the original text cannot advance beyond Candidate Rec anyway, because no user agent has successfully implemented it. So it is living on borrowed time wrt the W3C process anyway.

> On Jan 29, 2014, at 11:42 AM, "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <> wrote:
> * Hill, Brad wrote:
>> I think the removal of the text simply leaves the matter open to each 
>> user agent to implement the interactions between CSP and add-ons 
>> according to their own best ability and whatever priority of 
>> constituencies they already follow.  It neither implies interference nor 
>> non-interference.
> We are all familiar with the fact that removing a requirement leaves the
> matter covered by the requirement "open", thank you. That has nothing to
> do with what I wrote, though.
> -- 
> Björn Höhrmann · ·
> Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 ·
> 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · 

Received on Wednesday, 29 January 2014 19:46:07 UTC