- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 11:23:48 -0800
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org, "Hallvord R. M. Steen" <hallvord@opera.com>, Joćo Eiras <joaoe@opera.com>
On Nov 29, 2012, at 4:31 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: > On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 3:58 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: >> I don't think location.domain would be the same as location.tld, to the extent I understand the intent of them. >> For the URL "http://www.apple.com/", "apple.com" would be the domain, and "com" would be the TLD. > > Yes, but for the URL "http://www.google.co.uk/" you would need to have > publicsuffix.org information in order to determine that the effective > domain is "google.co.uk" and not "co.uk". > > I'm not going to add this because cookies and document.domain are not > good use cases for this. Cookies should eventually move to an > origin-based security model (probably via some kind of opt-in) and > document.domain should simply be avoided. > > (Ian asked me to reply to this thread > https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20011 as the URL > Standard now deals with these attributes.) To be clear, I don't support adding either location.domain or location.tld. It was messages earlier in the thread that asked for it. My remark above was just a pedantic correction. - Maciej
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2012 19:57:39 UTC