W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2009

Re: Do we need to rename the Origin header?

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:07:22 +0000 (UTC)
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-webapps@w3.org, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Weinig <weinig@apple.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0901142205581.29785@hixie.dreamhostps.com>

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Jan 2009, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >>
> >> It's not just POST that we need to worry about, ideally we should 
> >> cover the GET case as well. Or at least it's quite likely that we 
> >> will want to.
> >
> > My understanding was that we didn't want to include Origin in GET 
> > requests. In fact HTML5 right now goes out of its way to avoid 
> > including it in GET requests.
> 
> We've been debating this both ways at mozilla, no decision has been made 
> yet regarding what we'll recommend.

I've renamed it to XXX-Origin in HTML5. I haven't changed its behavior 
(it is still only sent for non-GET).

I'm trying to bring HTML5 to last call by October. Who "owns" this issue? 
Do we have an ETA on resolving it?

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2009 22:07:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:29 GMT