- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 17:31:02 -0700
- To: Austin William Wright <aaa@bzfx.net>
- Cc: Joel Weinberger <jww@chromium.org>, Devdatta Akhawe <dev.akhawe@gmail.com>, Frederik Braun <fbraun@mozilla.com>, "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
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