W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: CORS Last Call status/plans? [Was: Re: [UMP] Request for Last Call]

From: Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:29:12 -0700
Message-ID: <w2y5691356f1004181329x2750c650o258fd915d0e0c81@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 5:52 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> However I do like the idea of having a header which enumerates which
> additional headers can be exposed. That seems like it'll add similar
> value to exposing things by default, but with much less risk.
> Didn't mnot suggest something like that as part of his HTTP review?

If Mozilla agrees to implement it, I'd like UMP to specify a new
header named "U" whose value is either "*" or a list of allowed
response headers. A response with this header is opting out of Same
Origin Policy protection for both the response entity and the listed
response headers. The response is not required to also include the
Access-Control-Allow-Origin header, but can for compatibility with
current implementations.

This solution would get two birds with one stone, allowing use to
deprecate the verbose and misleading header name that mnot also
complained about.


"Waterken News: Capability security on the Web"
Received on Sunday, 18 April 2010 20:29:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:24 UTC