- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 20:05:54 +0200
- To: public-webappsec@w3.org
On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:37:24 +0200, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote: > http://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/subresourceintegrity/#the-noncanonical-src-attribute-todo > > I think the noncanonical-src feature is going to be insanely complicated > to get right. Please remove it. If authors want fallback, they can do so > in an imperative fashion, e.g.: > > <script src="https://example.com/script.js" > integrity="ni:///sha-256;jsdfhiuwergn...vaaetgoifq?ct=application/javascript" > onerror="var s = document.createElement('script'); > s.src = 'https://cdn.example.com/script.js'; > this.after(s);"></script> > > cheers To elaborate, the <script> processing model is already insanely complicated as it is. Adding a fallback mechanism doesn't seem like it makes it any less complicated. The specification doesn't say what the processing model is, so it's a bit difficult to comment on it. Is it supposed to reset some state on the <script> element and start a new instance of the fetch algorithm? Is it supposed to hook into the existing fetch and make it act like it made a redirect? When exactly does this happen? Why is the imperative fallback solution given above not sufficient? P.S. Please cc me on replies since I'm not subscribed to the list. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Monday, 16 June 2014 18:06:27 UTC