- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 17:02:54 +0000
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On 14/03/2013 16:57 , Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote: >> People who *do* rely on this (assuming they exist — in this case they >> probably do somewhere) will find their services broken if we change it. So >> on the face of things, I get the impression that there's zero cost in >> keeping things the way they are, and risk in changing them. > > Sure, I meant for new contexts and maybe some existing contexts, such > as workers. Oh, yes, agreed — for anything new this is madness. And I doubt anything recent relies on it, either. > Also, for shared workers it's not entirely clear which > browsing context you'd prompt in if an importScript() or same-origin > XMLHttpRequest happened. I think that's definitely a bug. >> I think that the lack of interoperability, and the complete inanity of >> prompting in browsers where it happens, is more problematic in the case of >> unsafe redirects. > > There should simply be no prompting there, it makes no sense. It's not just madness, it's different madness everywhere :) -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2013 17:03:34 UTC