​Ryan Sleevi <r...@sleevi.com> writes: >Is that because you believe it forbidden by spec, or simply unwise?
The spec allows almost anything, and in particular because there isn't any one definitive "spec" you can have ten incompatible interpretations that are all compliant to something that can claim to be the spec (see the Style Guide description). However, the chances of anything displaying this stuff correctly is essentially zero. >The value of a linter is fairly proportional to its value in spec adherence. Which of the half-dozen to dozen interpretations of what constitutes "the spec" do you want it to enforce, and why that particular one and not the others? Also, if it knows that the chances of anything being able to correctly handle a particular string form is essentially zero, even if some interpretation of the spec can claim it's OK, shouldn't it warn? >making them errors puts burden on CAs and the community to evaluate whether >or not it's an "actual violation" or just something "monumentally stupid" No, it's a way of telling CAs that if they do this, things will break. That's exactly what the original lint did, "this is permitted in the spec but you probably weren't intending to do that". It's cert*lint*, not certstrictcompliancecheckertoarbitraryunworkablerules. Peter. _______________________________________________ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
