On 7/1/15 2:49 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Platform. There was no strong opposition to the "Intent to deprecate:
Insecure HTTP" thread and in Whistler everyone attending the
deprecating non-secure HTTP session agreed. Do you think this needs to
be approached differently?
Yes. Because taken at face value, the given proposal of conditioning
every single new piece of DOM, CSS, JS, etc functionality on the "secure
context" thing (assuming we can even agree on how to define it) would
lead to code that's a nightmare to maintain, slower than it should be,
and makes web developers cry bloody tears.
Might I ask how many of the relevant module owners were at the Whistler
session you mention?
what the definition of "new web platform
features" is (e.g. does the webperf translateTime thing count?
Yes, anything for which Platform creates Intent to Implement/Ship threads.
Ignoring for the moment that _that_ decision is somewhat arbitrary....
Do you really think that shipping CSS Grid only in "secure contexts" is
a good idea?
The idea is that you indicate in the Intent to Implement/Ship thread
whether you want an exception to the secure context restriction.
We add lots of features without such Intent threads all the time. Just FYI.
There's a definition Google and us use to implement service workers.
Link, please?
Module owners, based on dev.platform input to the Intent to
Implement/Ship threads. No criteria were established. Hopefully
something that can be learned over time.
I suspect that different people involved in this conversation have
vastly different ideas of what constitutes a "feature" and how much pain
it is to make things conditional. Resolving those differences is key to
even having this conversation.
-Boris
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
