- From: Devdatta Akhawe <dev.akhawe@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 18:10:40 +0530
- To: Trevor Perrin <trevp@trevp.net>
- Cc: "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
> The 6920 format adds verbosity, parsing, and having to read a 20-page > (?!) doc. What's the benefit? I am curious: are these the only concerns you have with using the RFC 6920? One benefit of having content type as separate meta-data is the browser can send that and only that in the "accept" header. Regardless of whether the format is RFC6920 or not, I do think this is useful. I agree that reading a 20 page doc for something so simple is kinda ridiculous: at first glance, there do seem to be things in it that are unnecessary for the SRI use-case. But, at first glance---maybe others are able to come up with scenarios where those things are useful too. thanks Dev
Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2014 12:41:29 UTC