W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webappsec@w3.org > February 2015

Re: CfC to publish FPWD of "Upgrade Insecure Resources"; Deadline Feb 17th.

From: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 08:32:54 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKXHy=fHfjdmqjtZAK2-P2Ri7TLoyjoXtnp-fxzc55SW1zMmGw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
Cc: "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>, Brad Hill <hillbrad@gmail.com>, Dan Veditz <dveditz@mozilla.com>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>, Peter Eckersley <pde@eff.org>, yan zhu <yan@mit.edu>
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org> wrote:
> I support this effort. However, this shouldn't be a separate spec from
> MIX. I understand that from a document preparation perspective, there
> are benefits to having things split up in multiple documents. However,
> from the perspective of somebody trying to read such specifications,
> having related content spread across multiple documents is confusing.

Hrm. Ok, that's a fair point.

That said, the current upgrade draft is nicely self-contained; it lays
out a problem, then it describes a solution. I like that. Personally,
I find it easier to deal with documents that have this kind of narrow
focus and limited scope. They're certainly easier to write, as you
noted, but I find them easier to read as well. The HTML spec is a bad
example, because it's truly large in a way that MIX isn't, but I
certainly find it hard to work with when I want to know all the things
about how a single something works.

> In this case, in particular, having one of the coping mechanisms for
> the rest of MIX defined in a separate document is bad.

I can see that. I'm not convinced it's the right thing to do, but if
folks generally disagree with me, then I'll see what I can do about
gluing them together. :)

That said, my argument is significantly weakened since we introduced
strict mode to the MIX doc. Hrm.

> Maybe there is some concern that if we add this to MIX, then the rest
> of MIX will be delayed. I am not sure that matters, practically.

I'd like to get MIX out the door to lock in a baseline of expected
behavior that browsers, with the notable exception of Safari, have
more or less already agreed upon. Given that there's apparently
disagreement with the approach from folks like Tim Berners-Lee, I
think there's value in getting that baseline settled and shipped.

> if people feel like that is a concern, then we should just start a MIX
> 2 draft that is MIX + this feature.

Another approach (which is much more work) would be to continue moving
towards small documents, while at the same time curating a WebAppSec
summary document that could serve as an introduction to the features
described in each. I can imagine that being useful and approachable
for developers.

-mike

--
Mike West <mkwst@google.com>, @mikewest

Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstrasse 12, 80331 München, Germany,
Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891, Sitz der
Gesellschaft: Hamburg, Geschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine
Elizabeth Flores
(Sorry; I'm legally required to add this exciting detail to emails. Bleh.)
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2015 07:33:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:54:10 UTC