I mean that commenter also didn't fix it in the last ten years. Chromium is open source isn't it?
Maybe the commenter is less than ten years old. Otherwise they have as little excuse as the rest of us.
Maybe the commenter is less than ten years old. Otherwise they have as little excuse as the rest of us.
At times, it appears that web standards have evolved from their open nature to primarily supporting Google's agenda. If Google wants a certain product to run the browser, they will bend the standards to do that.
I bet as soon as a Google product needs this feature, the bug will be fixed.
It's hard to interact with because falsifying it requires invoking it yourself.
ex. here, we'd have to say "I bet you'd be right here complaining if it was fixed that Google was allowing arbitrary remote loads in not provably secure context." It requires a whole lot of supposition and negativity.
But this guy from Russia came in, threw a fit and was never heard again in this bug.
And still, the reply was polite.
I am sure there are tons of more bugs in the chromium project that are 10 years or older. Some things are just more critical than other.
So? Google still has a team assigned to the project, and that team has limited people, and it also has preferences and priorities.
Being open source doesn't mean that you can contribute to it at all. In this particular case, Google does actually take contributions, but only from people who signed their CLA, and many people aren't going to agree to that.
So, if you did that it'd probably be worse than useless because it might hamper the legal adoption of identical or near-identical code if the fix was such that there was essentially only one decent solution.
Google allows WTFPL third party code.