[whatwg] [CORS] WebKit tainting image instead of throwing error
w3c at adambarth.com
Thu Oct 6 14:54:12 PDT 2011
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky at mit.edu> wrote:
> On 10/6/11 12:11 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>> It sounds like you're arguing that it's better for developers if we
>> fail fast and hard
> In some cases, yes. It's a tradeoff in every case, obviously.
> A meta-issue: if you disagree with the spec text when implementing
> something, silently implementing something else seems strictly worse than
> raising a spec issue (and still implementing something else if desired).
I didn't knowingly diverge from the spec. I didn't notice the strict
error checking when writing the patch.
> Especially for things that you're planning to implement unprefixed.
We implemented this feature without a prefix at Ian's specific request.
> Likewise for cases when the spec is unclear, etc. What's the point of
> having implementations early in the specification process if they don't
> actually provide feedback and instead only serve to lock in behaviors?
I think you're being a big aggressive. In any case, I didn't have any
ill intent. I just misunderstood because it never occurred to me that
we'd want to fail hard on this sort of error.
More information about the whatwg