Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] ads.txt (#201)

As of version 1.0.2, we notice that most comments were not addressed yet, apart from a clarification in the redirect section. In this section, codes others than 302 are allowed, but 308 is missing from the updated list. The section 5.3 would greatly benefit from a clarification of the parsing model, whitespace definition, etc...

We are still concerned about the possible "downgrade redirect" issue, as the current specification still allows redirect from https to http. In general the specification should mandate the use of https only (and MAY default to http if not available, with the trust issues associated with its use).

Also, as the document defines a document format, it would be better for it to have a proper media type definition rather than using text/plain, at worst, using the generic text/csv would be better.
Note that the RFC defining the text/csv media type also define its grammar (see comment on section 5.3) https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4180

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/201#issuecomment-494447546