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

Re: BIKESHED: Rename "Powerful features"?

From: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 17:03:25 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKXHy=e1STNX1tm5dK8fj2u_ghF2OHJUJK5=Gr9T=Yd8yc-+sg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Cc: "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>, Yan Zhu <yzhu@yahoo-inc.com>, Crispin Cowan <crispin@microsoft.com>, Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote:

> I'm sorry you feel this is a "bikeshed"
>

That was supposed to be a joke. :) I thought your concerns were reasonable,
and I think it's worth bringing them back to the group explicitly.


> - the objective is to *avoid* future pointless nebulous discussions of the
> kind "is X 'powerful' ?" in favor of a more concrete "does X require a
> secure context ?". "Secure context" is a term we can own and define
> rigorously, "powerful" is not.
>

I think you underestimate the ability of people to argue about terms. :)
"Secure" is certainly something that folks can and will debate. See, for
instance, the long, long threads discussing opportunistic encryption. Is
that secure? I certainly have an opinion, and I know completely reasonable
folks who completely disagree with me.


> You could reasonably drop the qualifier "sufficiently" on the grounds that
> we don't generally bother writing specs for things that are "insufficient"
> and you could name the section "Features requiring secure contexts".
>

I think at some point we need to accept that we're defining a term. If it's
the case that defining "sufficiently secure" is as likely to cause debate
as defining "powerful feature", then let's leave things as they are,
because "POWER" is a totally radical name for a spec.

--
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 Wednesday, 18 February 2015 16:04:13 UTC

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