- From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:30:38 -0700
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 23:26 +0000, Sylvain Galineau wrote: > >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. > > Precisely. In fact, there isn’t even a MUST for clients. For them, EOTL > has not rootstring data. Period. > > > The format could however describe the rootstring field as a MAY for EOTL > generators. But that is the furthest it would go. My goodness this is refreshing. I'm not leaping up to volunteer but it'd be swell if we had a "secretary" of sort who was translating all this informal talk into draft-of-draft language. -t
Received on Thursday, 30 July 2009 23:31:18 UTC