On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: > > > IMO, it is better to do in Fetch, because then (a) more specifications > can > > reference it, (b) people working on changing Fetch and Fetch-based things > > may more easily notice that it is something that needs to be considered. > and > > (c) it is easy to tweak the Fetch spec to improve the definition later, > if > > necessary, than it is to improve MIX. > > (c) seems like a bug. Yes and no, but it's certainly true that we're moving slower than I'd like on this and other specs. That's partially a process problem, and partially a "Mike is doing too many things at once, and all poorly." problem. > (b) rings true. As for (a), nobody could think > of any other specifications. The other problem I have is how I would > go about defining this. > I've taken a stab at this question in https://github.com/w3c/webappsec/commit/4ddce9f4c7f17c1675a87f84911f3cd6248239f0 (which really just moves around and clarifies the checks already being done in the spec (and is more easily readable in https://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/mixedcontent/#is-passthrough and the other algorithm sections)). Adding a bit to the request might be cleaner, but if the set of properties MIX relies on are in fact reliable, then there's probably not a real need to add the bit. WDYT, Brian and Anne? -mike
Received on Sunday, 9 August 2015 05:45:31 UTC