drago01 at gmail.com
Wed Sep 22 14:09:52 UTC 2010
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Tomas Mraz <tmraz at redhat.com> wrote:
>> > This example is IMO wrong:
>> > - WebKit requires an update to solve a security problem. This requires
>> > updating Midori to a version with some minor menu layout changes. This
>> > would be a judgement call based on how intrusive the changes are
>> > (removing the File menu would be rude, but moving the plugin
>> > configuration menu item would be acceptable).
>> > In this case even major changes in user experience are justified -
>> > knowingly insecure web browser just should not be used.
>> That isn't any different than the firefox example on the page i.e
>> already covered.
> Yes, and that's the reason the example is wrong and it should be
Not sure I follow you here ... you point out a problem and a solution
which is _exactly the same_ as the people who drafted the proposal
though about and now you say "it is wrong and should be removed".
What do you propose instead? Shipping insecure browsers? Let me quote
you "knowingly insecure web browser just should not be used."
In case you didn't get what the example is trying to say "in such
cases changes like that are justified" .
By reading between the lines I come to the conclusion that you want
the "do not add intrusive changes" clause to be removed, but you
argument in favor for it has no value as there is an exception for
this particular case already.
More information about the devel