17837 2012-07-18 06:59:46 +0000 cors settings attribute - unclear meaning of 'omitted' 2012-09-28 04:18:54 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WHATWG HTML unspecified Other other CLOSED WONTFIX http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/urls.html#cors-settings-attributes P3 normal Unsorted 1 contributor ian bzbarsky glenn ian mike contributor oldest_to_newest 70144 0 contributor 2012-07-18 06:59:46 +0000 This was was cloned from bug 16575 as part of operation convergence. Originally filed: 2012-03-29 22:53:00 +0000 Original reporter: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> ================================================================================ #0 Glenn Adams 2012-03-29 22:53:25 +0000 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because attribute is not qualified as a "content attribute" in 2.7.5, it isn't clear what is meant by 'omitted'. Suggest making it explicit this is a content attribute being referred to. It would also be useful to add a note that the "CORS settings attribute" is concretely realized only in the @crossorigin content attribute declared on the img, video, and audio element types. ================================================================================ #1 Boris Zbarsky 2012-03-30 09:07:58 +0000 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gecko implements CORS settings attributes on <script> (@crossorigin) as well. And likely soon on <link> and maybe <style>. ================================================================================ 74613 1 glenn 2012-09-27 00:39:45 +0000 Please provide reason for "WONTFIX". 74713 2 ian 2012-09-28 03:45:41 +0000 As a general rule, if you want specific responses, please send feedback to the WHATWG list. I do not guarantee feedback on bugs, only that I will consider the bugs. The reason for the WONTFIX in this case is that it doesn't matter. It could say "foobar" instead of "attribute", it wouldn't change the meaning of the spec. What "omitted" means only matters when it's applied to an actual attribute, at which point it's no longer ambiguous. Consider it to be like a C++ macro. Late-bound.