W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2008

Re: XDomainRequest Integration with AC

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 08:42:45 -0400
Message-ID: <48C12945.1070508@mit.edu>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 09:43:29 +0200, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>> http://foo.com
>> and
>> http://foo.com:80
>>
>> are the same origin but have different string representations.
> 
> Yes, authors would have to use the former. (The former is also what 
> Origin will tell them as well.)

I might be missing some context here... but use the former where, 
exactly?  Would a page loaded from the latter not be able to do AC stuff?

In general, I think forcing authors to think about whether the port is 
included is really poor practice and sounds like it would break 
real-world systems (e.g. any system that wants to run HTTP servers on 
multiple ports and just always specifies ports everywhere instead of 
specifying 8080 but not 80).

Handling this in UAs is almost certainly reasonably straightforward 
(have to replace string compares with origin object compares, with the 
objects doing port normalization as needed).  It doesn't seem like it 
would be hard to deal with in the spec either, though obviously it's a 
bit more work than just not dealing.  So I'm not sure why we want to 
break the long-standing (and imo obvious per the relevant RFCs) 
convention that you get the same behavior for http:// no matter whether 
the port is explicitly listed as 80.

-Boris
Received on Friday, 5 September 2008 12:43:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:27 GMT