W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > May 2006

Re: Extension HTTP methods

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 13:04:29 +0200
To: "Pete Kirkham" <mach.elf@gmail.com>
Cc: "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.s9jfprwu64w2qv@id-c0020.oslo.opera.com>

On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 12:31:43 +0200, Pete Kirkham <mach.elf@gmail.com>  
> I have worked with XMLHttpRequest (and also the Java http libraries)
> and found it annoying that only a few of the WebDav and DeltaV methods
> are supported. Often I've had to hack it with a server script to
> tunnel the requests so that I end up with POST
> http://example.com/my-stuff?method=MKACTIVITY rather than MKACTIVITIY
> http://example.com/my-stuff so that I can use a repository from a
> browser based application.
> Assuming that generic methods are supported by whitelists or some
> other XSS protection, is there a reason why there needs to be a
> restriction on the available methods? POST is often used for
> destructive or billing operations, and a sensible restriction on the
> method name (say 32 character limit of <any CHAR except CTLs or
> separators> to prevent overrun attacks) rather than a restrive list.

Currently some browsers have a whitelist and others have a blacklist and  
the group has resolved to go for a whitelist containing all safe methods  
that currently exist, unless the IETF comes up with good reasons not to.  
There are currently some methods that can't be allowed for security  
reasons and because such method smay be introduced in the future as well  
allowing arbitrary method names does not seem like a good idea.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Sunday, 14 May 2006 11:04:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:21 UTC