Thank you to everyone that provided feedback. I've read everyone's
comments and taken them into account with my new draft:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/User:Overholt/APIExposurePolicy
In general I tried to make it more of a set of requests and guidelines
than a set of "must"s. I also clarified
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
> Presumably we could have a blacklist of the handful of protocols that are
> internal to browsers and have compat issues. "It violates the standard"
> isn't a very compelling argument when the standard is in the process of
> being written and nobo
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 1:45 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Benjamin Smedberg
> wrote:
> > I don't understand why it matters. chrome: and resource: are both
> > gecko-specific extensions and we have no desire to standardize them.
> > Chromium uses a different schem
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
> I don't understand why it matters. chrome: and resource: are both
> gecko-specific extensions and we have no desire to standardize them.
> Chromium uses a different scheme for their chrome: protocol.
Because doing so would be a violation
4 matches
Mail list logo