> My use-use was rather niche: a delay proxy for links on arbitrary domains. This sounds a whole lot like traffic shaping, which would be a brilliant argument against this. On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 5:01 PM Utkarsh Upadhyay <musically.ut@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't know whether my request a year ago was counted as +1, but here is > it. :) > > My use-use was rather niche: a delay proxy for links on arbitrary domains. > > ~ > ut > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Nico Schlömer <nico.schloemer@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Thanks for the speedy reply! >> >> > And to be fair, we've not even had a handful of requests for it thus >> far. >> >> Count this as a +1. :) >> >> (We'll now have to make a decision for our API to be RESTful or to be >> accessible for clients that implement the fetch specification. :/) >> >> Cheers, >> Nico >> >> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 4:40 PM Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Nico Schlömer <nico.schloemer@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > This seems to mean that one cannot do redirects for authenticated >>> resources >>> > -- even if the redirect is on the same domain (localhost). Can this >>> really >>> > be true or am I missing something? >>> >>> 1. This is true. Nobody wanted to implement the preflight scheme for >>> redirects. At least not as a first pass. And to be fair, we've not >>> even had a handful of requests for it thus far. >>> 2. You want to read https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/ instead. It's the >>> maintained version of the standard. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> https://annevankesteren.nl/ >>> >> >
Received on Friday, 22 January 2016 17:41:48 UTC