- From: <sird@rckc.at>
- Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 18:46:43 +0800
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, public-web-security@w3.org
Received on Tuesday, 8 December 2009 10:47:43 UTC
Oh, I would swear it was different before. =S.. my fail (maybe cache?) So, I'm really sorry, it do states Set-Cookie/2 should be ignored. @Anne, what about the - alias for _ on Apache on request headers? -- Eduardo http://www.sirdarckcat.net/ Sent from Hangzhou, 33, China On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 17:38:05 +0100, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 8:19 AM, sird@rckc.at <sird@rckc.at> wrote: >> >>> 3.- Do you really want to return to the user ALL http headers with >>> getAllResponseHeaders? think on Set-Cookie + httpOnly >>> >> >> I believe most (all?) implementations block returning Set-Cookie >> headers with HttpOnly cookies. If the spec doesn't say this, it's out >> of step with common practice. >> > > RTFS? ;-) > > > -- > Anne van Kesteren > http://annevankesteren.nl/ >
Received on Tuesday, 8 December 2009 10:47:43 UTC