To be honest, when I look at the names on that list, I really don't see it as much of a warning. The first entry is google. Add that to fact that the spec basically reads "hey we know this use-case exists, we don't recommend it, but acknowledge that some people will have valid reasons to do this", and I still think it should be better supported. But that's fine different opinions and all.
>From a more practical perspective, in the current system, how would I go about getting this to work with a self-hosted service, where the domain name isn't known ahead of time, and can't be whitelisted? On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 2:16:59 PM UTC-4, David Collier-Brown wrote: > > On 09/05/18 11:30 AM, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > >> We're innocent victims (;-)) and need to decide if we're supporting the >> spec or the customers. Right now we're supporting the spec. >> > > I mean you've already decided to support a specific list of customers who > don't adhere to the spec. So you're kind of already supporting both. Why > not just make it easier? > > > I read the existence of a list as a warning to people who attempt to > follow the spec that they will needed a workaround for a particular group. > If we were supporting the "won't do" customers, we would presumably have > changed our defaults instead. > > --dave > > -- > David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify > System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the > [email protected] <javascript:> | -- Mark > Twain > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
