Re: [UPGRADE] Consider plan B for reduced complexity?

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
wrote:

> On Mon 2015-03-16 05:26:39 -0400, Mike West wrote:
> > Optionally-blockable mixed content is certainly also an important issue,
> > though, as it creates UI degradation, which developers very much wish to
> > avoid (as noted in #2 in the email you're responding to).
>
> If Chrome provides degraded UI for plain http:// sites (i think this has
> been discussed recently, but don't have a link handy), then the site
> operators will have only one way to fix this, which is a move to full
> HTTPS with mixed content at all, right?
>

Indeed.
http://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-security/marking-http-as-non-secure
is certainly a potential end game for plaintext, but I don't think we can
assume that it's going to happen quickly enough to make developers happy
with a proposal that doesn't deal with the status quo.

-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.)