Tweaked comments related to mime boundary marker generation.

third_party/WebKit/Source/platform/network/FormDataEncoder.cpp

Index: third_party/WebKit/Source/platform/network/FormDataEncoder.cpp
diff --git a/third_party/WebKit/Source/platform/network/FormDataEncoder.cpp b/third_party/WebKit/Source/platform/network/FormDataEncoder.cpp
index 0b73501150dbf777cc14f8f0ab4decd858ca4b49..1aef3e851f73692366ca35562eb80a45d760b4a0 100644
--- a/third_party/WebKit/Source/platform/network/FormDataEncoder.cpp
+++ b/third_party/WebKit/Source/platform/network/FormDataEncoder.cpp
@@ -99,15 +99,16 @@ WTF::TextEncoding FormDataEncoder::encodingFromAcceptCharset(const String& accep
     return charset;
 }
 
-// TODO(lukasza): Reuse net::GenerateMimeMultipartBoundary instead.

[Łukasz Anforowicz, 2016/01/08 21:31:12]

Hmmm... ideally we would have only 1 piece of code for generating the mime
boundary.  I understand that we don't want Blink to be able to issue network
requests without going through the browser process + because of repo history
don't even allow blink -> base dependencies.  OTOH, it sounds that some blink ->
base dependencies will be eventually allowed and therefore maybe we just need to
move GenerateMimeMultipartBoundary into base?

WDYT?  Should I remove the "reuse" TODO or leave it here to see what happens
after Blink moves around and starts allowing some Chromium dependencies (like
base)?

[Ryan Sleevi, 2016/01/08 21:34:22]

No, we don't want base/ to be the dumping ground for what is unquestionably a
network layer dependency :)

The story of Blink and //net is even more complicated than the //base bit,
that's why I objected to the TODO - because it's not at all clear that this is a
good / right direction, but the TODO when read naturally suggests this is the
"decided decision"
Wholly remove.

 Vector<char> FormDataEncoder::generateUniqueBoundaryString()
 {
     Vector<char> boundary;
 
+    // TODO(rsleevi): crbug.com/575779: Follow the spec or fix the spec.
     // The RFC 2046 spec says the alphanumeric characters plus the
     // following characters are legal for boundaries:  '()+_,-./:=?
     // However the following characters, though legal, cause some sites
     // to fail: (),./:=+
+    //
     // Note that our algorithm makes it twice as much likely for 'A' or 'B'
     // to appear in the boundary string, because 0x41 and 0x42 are present in
     // the below array twice.