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

Re: CfC: Republish MIX as CR; deadline July 29th.

From: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 13:22:28 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKXHy=cg3hjZnHnwUQMSh==g5ZhKJGKzjXByJ3A1vicviZzEYw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Cc: Brad Hill <hillbrad@gmail.com>, Dan Veditz <dveditz@mozilla.com>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>, Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>, "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
I think this is the semantic we need for MIX. If you implement it in Fetch,
brilliant. If not, I think I'll need to implement it in MIX, which is less
brilliant, but fine.

On Jul 30, 2015 12:41, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Mike West <mkwst@google.com> wrote:
> > Still, examining the `window` and `client` property sees like a strange
> way
> > of asking "Is this a passthrough request?" One way of dealing with that
> > indirection is to bake it into Fetch. Another is to rewrite the
> algorithm in
> > MIX to make more sense. It sounds like you'd prefer the latter, Anne.
> I'm not sure, I haven't made up my mind. Indicating "passthrough" in
> some way might have value elsewhere too, though I can't immediately
> think of anything. It is a bit weird how this works out for MIX, but
> copying context over for three values where that has use seems wrong
> too. And we definitely need to keep client/window around for a whole
> bunch of things.
> --
> https://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Thursday, 30 July 2015 11:23:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:50 UTC