Robert O'Callahan wrote: > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Brian Smith <bsm...@mozilla.com> wrote: > > > At the same time, I doubt such a policy is necessary or helpful for the > > modules that I am owner/peer of (PSM/Necko), at least at this time. In > > fact, though I haven't thought about it deeply, most of the recent evidence > > I've observed indicates that such a policy would be very harmful if applied > > to network and cryptographic protocol design and deployment, at least. > > > > I think you should elaborate, because I think we should have consistent > policy across products and modules.
I don't think that you or I should try to block this proposal on the grounds that it must be reworked to be sensible to apply to all modules, especially when the document already says that that is a non-goal and already explicitly calls out some modules to which it does not apply: "Note that at this time, we are specifically focusing on new JS APIs and not on CSS, WebGL, WebRTC, or other existing features/properties." Somebody clarified privately that many DOM/JS APIs don't live in the DOM module. So, let me rework my request a little bit. In the document, instead of creating a blacklist of web technologies to which the new policy would not apply (CSS, WebGL, WebRTC, etc.), please list the modules to which the policy would apply. It seems (from the subject line on this thread, the title of the proposal, and the text of the proposal) that the things I work on are probably intended to be out of scope of the proposal. That's the thing I want clarification on. If it is intended that the stuff I work on (networking protocols, security protocols, and network security protocols) be covered by the policy, then I will reluctantly debate that after the end of the quarter. (I have many things to finish this week to Q2 goals.) Cheers, Brian _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
