Re: Feedback on Access Control

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> >
> > Access-Control: allow <example.com> method GET
> > Access-Control: POST
> > Access-Control: PUT, DELETE, deny <example.org> method POST
> > Access-Control: GET
> > 
> > Will clients be able to parse this correctly? Please don't repeat the 
> > mistakes of the Set-Cookie header; this is very bad practice. It would 
> > be better to leverage existing syntax from other headers; e.g.,
> > 
> > Access-Control: allow="example.com"; method="GET POST PUT DELETE", 
> > deny="example.org"; method="POST GET"
> 
> Good point. Is the rest of the WG ok with changing this? Jonas?

Oops, I missed that when I read the spec.

I recommend just changing the #Method from being comma-separated to being 
space-separated, as in:

   Access-Control: allow <example.com> method GET PUT

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2008 19:58:23 UTC