Anne van Kesteren wrote: > Mi ke West wrote: > (Note also that in my ever so brief (and probably incompetent) > > experimentation, I'm getting mixed content errors when doing anything > other > > than a passthrough fetch for insecure content. Maybe I misunderstood > Alex, > > or he misunderstood me?) > > If by passthrough you mean fetch(event.request) that'd make sense to me. > I think that that is a compromise worth considering: Allow mixed-content fetch in a service worker only if the fetch is forwarding a request generated from the browser's normal fetching of a <img>, <video>, or <audio> source, and otherwise block it. IMO, it doesn't make sense to advance this document to PR if it describes something where there is not agreement and that people don't intend to implement. I wish people agreed with what the spec says, but specs are not supposed to be wishful thinking. I think pushing the current document forward is likely to result in worse (less strict) mixed content blocking in real implementations than if we took the time to properly resolve the issue. Cheers, Brian -- https://briansmith.org/
Received on Sunday, 19 July 2015 19:58:55 UTC