Re: CfC: Subresource Integrity (SRI) to Last Call?

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Austin William Wright <aaa@bzfx.net> wrote:
> That's because this isn't a URL, it's a URI (at least not without an
> authority component). As such, it's completely opaque to Web browsers.

That distinction has been meaningless since forever.


> While `integrity` isn't limited to HTML, there's plenty of precedent for
> using URIs outside use as network identifiers in HTML, namely the `rel` and
> `xmlns` attributes, and the `profile` media type property.

These are all terrible precedents that we don't want to follow.


> In any event, Web browsers shouldn't need to care, the syntax is arbitrary
> to them.

As I explained the more complicated processing model is not at all
something arbitrary that can be ignored.


-- 
https://annevankesteren.nl/

Received on Friday, 24 April 2015 00:31:24 UTC