Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com> wrote: >(revised slightly from previous draft) >[...] >Issue PROTECTION-SPACE: People are happy with the current language, but >current implementations don't behave as specified; the spec doesn't >break any existing implementation. We'll go forward with the current >language in rev-01. Note that the current revision still does not address the issue of the implied protection space for Basic proxy authentication (all Request-URIs via the proxy). >[...] >State Management: >[...] >Following the slide presentation, there was discussion on the privacy >considerations in the draft. Ted Hardie: In Comment-URL, the URL could >potentially be a non-HTTP URL, and this issue needs to be addressed. I am puzzled by this statement. In early drafts, there was no restriction on the scheme for CommentURLs. For security reasons, the Lynx field test implementation limited them to server-based schemes (e.g., http(s), gopher, ftp, wais). Subsequent drafts explicitly limited CommentURLs to http (and https by implication :) and the implementation in the recent Lynx v2.7.2 release so restricts them. Isn't this a closed issue? Fote ========================================================================= Foteos Macrides Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU 222 Maple Avenue, Shrewsbury, MA 01545 =========================================================================Received on Wednesday, 7 January 1998 09:15:14 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:04 UTC