Yeah, whatever problems we have with view-net-internal, we must have with view-cache. Before making a change, we should understand why view-cache hasn't been a problem. Or, has it? -Darin
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Eric Roman <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sure, I am willing to move things around. > > Note that I was following the model of "view-cache:" which uses similar > URLs. > > (Turns out it is easier as its own scheme, since all of the > implementation details can live in the network module. If we pull it > up into chrome:// the code will need up move up some layers). > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Peter Kasting <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Adam Barth <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Eric Roman <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > In the chromium trunk builds later than r25926, there is a new info > >> > page, > >> > "view-net-internal:" > >> > >> Can we move this to chrome://net-internal/ ? Proliferating random > >> schemes adds up to a security issue. The "chrome" scheme has a bunch > >> of mitigations to reduce attack surface. > > > > Honestly, since it's already at about:net-internal I would just leave it > > with that as the lone access point, unless we have to alias this to > > something else under the hood (though we have chrome-internal:// for > that, > > right?) > > PK > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
