On Tue, Jan 01, 2008 at 09:08:30PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Here is a patch based heavily on Joey's original patch that describes > that. This patch (similar to Joey's) doesn't include the URL > canonicalization requirements of the secure BROWSER specification. They > don't seem obviously necessary to me and are complex and would add a lot > of additional wording to explain how to canonicalize URLs. > > Comments? Seconds?
Solely for being better specified, I think either this or the Compatible definition is preferable to the ESR original. I never use BROWSER myself, so I'm hesitant to weigh in on the other aspects. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
