- From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:28:35 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 18:22 -0500, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Thomas Lord<lord@emf.net> wrote: > > That suggests a SHOULD requirement. UAs SHOULD ignore > > non-nil root-strings but are not obligated to do so. > > Authors can't count on them being ignored on the one > > hand but UA makers are encouraged to ignore them > > entirely. > > Nope, it has to be a MUST requirement - UAs MUST ignore non-nil > rootstrings. IE <= 8 browsers will just be nonconforming (which is > fine, since they were produced before this standard was produced), and > authors can take advantage of that to hack something resembling > same-origin into it if they wish. You are a braver man than I, in this matter. Only... I'm not at all sure you're wrong. Still, I'll offer my case: I suggest "SHOULD" because that would allow "IE<=8" to be retroactively conforming. Of course, if they are not retroactively conforming, then what's the point? Take EOT-lite off the table, in that case. -t
Received on Thursday, 30 July 2009 23:29:14 UTC