- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 23:25:49 +0100
- To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
- Cc: Trevor Perrin <trevp@trevp.net>, Brad Hill <hillbrad@gmail.com>, Devdatta Akhawe <dev.akhawe@gmail.com>, "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
* Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: >On 03/25/2014 04:21 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: >> The point of the example is that an implementation would need to know >> which attributes carry integrity information, which is simple with an >> `integrity` attribute and impossible with your scheme; there is no need >> for the specification to demand any specific behavior; as an example, a >> browser vendor might decide never to make the address bar "green" when >> there is integrity information the browser cannot verify (because the >> scheme is unknown); there is no need to codify that in the standard. > >I disagree that the standard shouldn't weigh in here. site operators >need to have a sense of how these directives will be interpreted. (I meant there is no need for the purposes of my argument and example; I do agree the Working Group should carefully consider user agent behavior for the cases you list.) -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2014 22:26:17 UTC