On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 9:51 AM Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Joel Weinberger <jww@chromium.org> wrote: > > FWIW, it would not be difficult for Chrome to switch back to the ni:/// > > syntax, so I don't think we should make that a blocker on using it. > > As per > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webappsec/2015Jan/0200.html > and other emails I wrote on the subject I'm opposed to switching back. > URLs add a layer of abstraction to the processing model that is not > warranted and for which there is no precedent. The precedent worth > following here is CSP and HTML's existing approach to syntax within > attributes. > For a further clarification, I agree whole heartedly with Anne's analysis. I just didn't want to give the false impression that the Chrome implementation should be a blocker on discussing this. > > > -- > https://annevankesteren.nl/ >
Received on Thursday, 23 April 2015 17:02:18 UTC