On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 12:02 AM, Martin Thomson <m...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Either of these criteria are sufficient, right? However, I expect
> that we'll want to hold the line in some cases where other browsers
> ship anyway. How do we plan to resolve that? One potential
> resolution to that sort of problem is to ship in secure contexts
> anyway and ask other browsers to do the same.
>
> My expectation is that we'll discuss these and exercise judgment. But
> I thought that I'd raise this point here. I want to avoid creating an
> expectation here that we're happy with lowest common denominator when
> it comes to these issues.
I was hoping that the section "Exceptions to requiring secure
contexts" makes it quite clear that it is indeed an appeals process.
We already have a process for shipping new features ("intent to
implement/ship") and now you need to present justification if you want
to ship a feature available on insecure contexts. It is likely that an
exception is granted for either of the reasons given, but it's not a
guarantee. The dev-platform community can still object and if that is
sustained by the Distinguished Engineers I would expect us to not ship
it (or ship it restricted to secure contexts).
I have clarified https://wiki.mozilla.org/ExposureGuidelines that
secure contexts needs to be part of the "intent to implement" emails
and also linked the secure contexts post from the suggested
implementation process.
--
https://annevankesteren.nl/
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
