W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-appformats@w3.org > March 2007

[access-control] Syntax of an access-item

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:11:11 +0200
To: "WAF WG (public)" <public-appformats@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.tpyhsxtl64w2qv@id-c0020>

Latest draft:

   http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/waf/access-control/Overview.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8


The current production for an access item is as follows:

   access-item    ::= scheme "://" domain-pattern ( ":" port )? | "*"
   domain-pattern ::= subdomain | "*." subdomain

When port is omitted it defaults to the default port for the scheme being  
used. It has been proposed to allow people to wildcard scheme and port as  
you're likely in control the completely domain. This would allow:

   *://example.org:*

for instance. But not:

   example.org

The problem is that wilcarding them no longer allows port to default to  
the scheme being used in a case like:

   *://example.org


Maybe we should do away with the port defaulting though. How do people  
feel about that? If you omit port or scheme it would match regardless of  
the port or scheme used by the request URL (for those parts). So scheme  
and port would default to being wildcarded when omitted in a way. This  
would allow:

   example.org
   http://example.org
   example.org:80

And disallow:

   *://example.org
   example.org:*

This approach is probably the simplest way of dealing with it. The new  
syntax for access item would become:

   access-item    ::= ( scheme "://" )? domain-pattern ( ":" port )? | "*"
   domain-pattern ::= subdomain | "*." subdomain


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Thursday, 29 March 2007 15:11:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:10:21 GMT