W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2009

Re: ACTION-96: Origin removal

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:32:30 -0600
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, public-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <1232422350.30129.2871.camel@pav.lan>

On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 01:28 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote:
> (Back on public-html since this is about changes to the spec.)
> 
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2009, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, 2009-01-19 at 17:01 +0100, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> > [...]
> > > I suggest simply marking it with a big-issue note stating that the 
> > > section is intended to be removed pending its inclusion in an 
> > > alternative spec.
> > 
> > Yes, I like that idea; please do that, Ian.
> 
> I'm very confused. Which section are we talking about removing?

Oops; I assumed "it" in Lachlan's "marking it..." referred to
a section on an Origin: HTTP header field.

On review, all I find is a sentence buried
in section 5.11.2.1 Hyperlink auditing:

"In addition, an XXX-Origin header must always be included, whose value
is the ASCII serialization of the origin of the the Document containing
the hyperlink."
  -- http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#hyperlink-auditing


> > While you're at it, feel free to note the 2 possibilities Henri outlined 
> > in his message of Mon, 19 Jan 2009 01:33:27 +0200.
> 
> Could you elaborate on which section you think should get a note, and what 
> the note should say? I'm very confused here.

Never mind.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2009 03:33:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:00 UTC