- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 22:38:58 -0400
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 6/27/11 7:58 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: > However, from a forward compatibility perspective, the introduction of > mandatory same origin presents a problem for fielded implementations > with respect to claims of conformance. Why is that a problem? Who is expecting implementations to be conformant to specifications that postdate them? > I would also note that none of the other CSS specs that entails > referencing of resources, e.g., via @import, image references, replaced > content references, etc., require or even make reference to same-origin > semantics. Actually, that's caused problems. In practice, browsers have had to implement various same-origin restrictions on @import (e.g. for CSSOM access, non-CSS content types, etc), and they have in practice done so in incompatible ways. It would have been _much_ better if @import had clearly defined cross-origin behavior. I would hope that we've learned something in the time since @import was specified. -Boris
Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 02:39:26 UTC