- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 12:18:59 +0100
- To: Brad Hill <hillbrad@gmail.com>
- Cc: David Ross <drx@google.com>, "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
* Brad Hill wrote: >On Thu Feb 12 2015 at 5:16:07 PM Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote: >> If "EPR" is redundant with existing features, why is it being proposed? >I don't think EPR is more important than preserving linking on the web, but >I don't think it's useless, either. I guess I feel like the things driving >each are different. If sites think that deep linking is economically >harmful to them, they are already motivated to aggressively deploy >existing tools and techniques to attack it. Adding a slightly cheaper way >to accomplish some of the same goals won't change the outcomes much for >that population. That does not really answer my question. It seems to me the argument is, paraphrasing, "existing entry point regulation features work great, so adding more should not be a concern; but we should add more of them be- cause the existing features do not work so great after all". -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de D-10243 Berlin · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de Available for hire in Berlin (early 2015) · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Friday, 13 February 2015 11:19:31 UTC