- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 01:03:51 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Cc: public-appformats@w3.org
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Thomas Roessler wrote: > > On 2008-01-30 22:09:57 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote: > > > When a 200 OK OPTIONS response has this header with a path that doesn't > > match its own URI (as defined above), any Access-Control headers, > > <?access-control?> PIs, and Method-Check-Max-Age headers are ignored. > > I suspect that you intend "match" to mean both a prefix match and an > exact match? I meant that when a 200 OK OPTIONS response has the header with a path which, after adding a leading slash if a leading slash is not present, is not an exact match for the path component of the URI of the 200 OK response itself, any Access-Control headers, <?access-control?> PIs, and Method-Check-Max-Age headers are ignored. This is really just reiterating what is already specified (through implication) by the rest of the proposal, which is why it doesn't use RFC2119 terminology. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2008 01:04:10 UTC