- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:30:57 +0200
- To: "Brad Kemper" <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, "Mikko Rantalainen" <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>
- Cc: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>, "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>, "CSS 3 W3C Group" <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:13:30 +0200, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: > Are you saying that there is a technical barrier to having CORS > provide restrictions instead of just easing restrictions, because it > would need to prevent a resource from loading instead of just > preventing it from executing? Or is it more of a philosophical problem > because that was not the original intent of the standard? Imposing restrictions is something the WG considered to be out of scope very early on for reasons I and others already explained. (CORS can be used for images by the way, but not for imposing restrictions on whether they can be displayed, but whether they can be round-tripped through <canvas>.) I'm not sure why this thread became cc'ed to the WHATWG list by the way. The WHATWG has nothing to do with CORS. The W3C WebApps WG is working on it. If people want to continue debating CORS I suggest they subscribe to public-webapps@w3.org and make coherent proposals there. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 23 June 2009 09:31:41 UTC