Re: [ServiceWorker] Document the headers being introduced (#717)

Agree with @annevk, relative urls are fine here, and are supported by the current spec. As for an empty value, I agree that's an indication of error but the result is the same as omitting the header, so allowing it seems fine.

Excuse my lack of knowledge here, but does the service worker spec count as an open standard as per https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-7, or will we have to define these headers in a seperate doc?

Is the goal to get these headers listed at http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/message-headers.xhtml? I don't see content-security-policy there, is that just an oversight?

> Update maxScope to be the result of resolving the URL relative to the document's registering script url, since it incorrectly refers to being the result of parsing serviceWorkerAllowed, which is incorrect, since serviceWorkerAllowed is already parsed (presumably, as a URL)

`serviceWorkerAllowed` is the result of parsing the header, `maxScope` is the result of parsing `serviceWorkerAllowed` as a url.

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/slightlyoff/ServiceWorker/issues/717#issuecomment-114825606