Access-Control-Allow-Origin #267
Conversation
Kukks
left a comment
Kukks
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ACK when including @AaronDewes suggestion.
Co-authored-by: Aaron Dewes <aaron@runcitadel.space>
shocknet-justin
left a comment
shocknet-justin
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
split the diff
|
Why are we adding I suggest we remove this. |
This is necessary for the LNURL to work/be resolved from web browsers. |
|
I was mistaken, LNURL resolution is considered a "simple" request that does not require options. |
|
Long needed guidance. Thanks for writing this. ACK |
|
another one... plz merge |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@AaronDewes what do you think, we have a lot of approves and it should be merged, can you resolve your suggested chance, or you still think its important? for me its either way
|
Schváleno |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
good guidance
@dni I suggest this be merged. @AaronDewes seems unresponsive and his comments are not contentious
|
I missed the previous mentions. I still think reverse proxies should be removed, but it's not extremely important to me. I'm not a LNURL spec author and not in a position to block merges anyway 😄 Just to repeat my main point: Mentioning reverse proxies in the spec is (in my opinion) basically an invitation for application developers to not fully implement the spec and "outsource" that to users. |
|
Beserious40 |
12 participants
#259