Re: [SRI] Comments on Subresource Integrity spec

ok .. I created

Unless there is strong objection, I think we should go with this.

On 18 May 2015 at 15:22, Joel Weinberger <> wrote:

> "MAY" certainly covers the plans for our implementation, so it works for
> me. I'd like to know, though, if any UA actually plans not to follow this
> directive. If not, than I don't really see the point of a "MAY" vs "SHOULD"
> or "MUST." But, yeah, I'm fine with this in any case.
> --Joel
> PS: I'm on vacation until next week, so I'll be quite slow to respond at
> times. My apologies!
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 5:29 AM, Devdatta Akhawe <>
> wrote:
>> Given that there is some disagreement about this, I don't think we gain
>> anything by asserting that. As I mentioned, I can imagine a UA doing this
>> to encourage migration.
>> On 18 May 2015 at 08:39, Gervase Markham <> wrote:
>>> On 18/05/15 16:33, Devdatta Akhawe wrote:
>>> > I thought the MAY gave flexibility to UAs. Does it not?
>>> It does; but I always think that when a spec says "MAY", it means a bit
>>> more than "You MAY consider the moon to be made of green cheese"; i.e.
>>> there are circumstances where the MAY might be a good idea. I'm not sure
>>> I can think of any circumstances where a UA would decide to block loads
>>> due to out-of-date integrity hash algorithms, given that the
>>> no-integrity behaviour is to load regardless.
>>> Gerv

Received on Monday, 18 May 2015 22:44:56 UTC