W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > October 2011

[whatwg] [CORS] WebKit tainting image instead of throwing error

From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 22:01:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJE5ia9KUpg_tTk=7A94asJLGMgDkJBkg8USmkCptr67Vx7dhw@mail.gmail.com>
To follow up on this thread, this issue should be resolved in
http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/98215.  Please let me know if further
improvements are needed.

Adam


On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Adam Barth <w3c at adambarth.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky at mit.edu> wrote:
>> On 10/6/11 12:11 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>>>
>>> It sounds like you're arguing that it's better for developers if we
>>> fail fast and hard
>>
>> In some cases, yes. ?It's a tradeoff in every case, obviously.
>>
>> A meta-issue: if you disagree with the spec text when implementing
>> something, silently implementing something else seems strictly worse than
>> raising a spec issue (and still implementing something else if desired).
>
> I didn't knowingly diverge from the spec. ?I didn't notice the strict
> error checking when writing the patch.
>
>> Especially for things that you're planning to implement unprefixed.
>
> We implemented this feature without a prefix at Ian's specific request.
>
>> Likewise for cases when the spec is unclear, etc. ?What's the point of
>> having implementations early in the specification process if they don't
>> actually provide feedback and instead only serve to lock in behaviors?
>
> I think you're being a big aggressive. ?In any case, I didn't have any
> ill intent. ?I just misunderstood because it never occurred to me that
> we'd want to fail hard on this sort of error.
>
> Adam
>
Received on Sunday, 23 October 2011 22:01:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:37 UTC