Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Brad Kemperbrad.kem...@gmail.com wrote:
This makes sense to me. I was surprised and found it counter-intuitive to
learn that CORS could be used to list the servers that are allowed access,
but could not and would not restrict access to
A server serving documents containing references to content from other
sites, embedded or not, does not distribute that content. It would only
redistribute in case of hot piping. Some sites have a policy disallowing
publishing backdoor hyperlinks; the legal implications of such a policy are
...@whatwg.org; Mikko Rantalainen; www-st...@w3.org
Objet : Re: [whatwg] New work on fonts at W3C
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Brad Kemperbrad.kem...@gmail.com wrote:
So your argument, in effect, is that site owners should not be allowed to
restrict their content, because it might actually work
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Brad Kemperbrad.kem...@gmail.com wrote:
This makes sense to me. I was surprised and found it counter-intuitive to
learn that CORS could be used to list the servers that are allowed access,
but could not and would not restrict access to servers not on that list.
If browsers start refusing cross-domain image requests, some servers will
work around this problem using hot piping. I am not sure this would be
good-but I cannot say it would be bad either.
IMHO,
Chris
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:15 AM, Aryeh Gregor
simetrical+...@gmail.comsimetrical%2b...@gmail.com
wrote:
I believe that's the major rationale for not permitting cross-origin
restrictions on existing media types. The only way this could work is
if *all* browsers agreed to implement it all at
