- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:19:20 -0700
- To: Sunava Dutta <sunavad@windows.microsoft.com>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "annevk@opera.com" <annevk@opera.com>, Sharath Udupa <Sharath.Udupa@microsoft.com>, Zhenbin Xu <Zhenbin.Xu@microsoft.com>, Gideon Cohn <gidco@windows.microsoft.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, IE8 Core AJAX SWAT Team <ieajax@microsoft.com>
Please note that Access-Control-Allow-Origin: url is also allowed syntax. Where the url must contain only scheme, domain and host. So the following syntax is allowed: Access-Control-Allow-Origin: http://example.com It is somewhat unclear if the following syntaxes are allowed: Access-Control-Allow-Origin: http://example.com/ Access-Control-Allow-Origin: http://example.com/? Access-Control-Allow-Origin: http://example.com/# Access-Control-Allow-Origin: http://example.com/; I think the first one should be ok, but not the other three. / Jonas Sunava Dutta wrote: > Access-Control-Allow-Origin: * seems to be the consensus for the public scenario, please confirm. > On a less urgent note did we get any further traction on the discussion on angle brackets for the URL specified scenario? The last mail here seems to be on 7/21. > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:mjs@apple.com] >> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 9:32 PM >> To: Jonas Sicking >> Cc: Sunava Dutta; annevk@opera.com; Sharath Udupa; Zhenbin Xu; Gideon >> Cohn; public-webapps@w3.org; IE8 Core AJAX SWAT Team >> Subject: Re: XDomainRequest Integration with AC >> >> >> On Jul 18, 2008, at 11:15 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >>>> On Jul 18, 2008, at 4:20 PM, Sunava Dutta wrote: >>>>> I'm in time pressure to lock down the header names for Beta 2 to >>>>> integrate XDR with AC. It seems no body has objected to Jonas's >>>>> proposal. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public- >> webapps/2008JulSep/0175.html >>>>> Please let me know if this discussion is closed so we can make the >>>>> change. >>>> I think Anne's email represents the most recent agreement and I >>>> don't think anyone has objected: >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008JulSep/0142.html >>>> The change would be: Instead of checking for >>>> "XDomainRequestAllowed: 1" check for "Access-Control-Allow-Origin: >>>> *" or "Access-Control-Allow-Origin: url" where url matches what was >>>> sent in the Origin header. >>> So I have one final request for a change to the above syntax. >>> >>> How would people feel about the syntax >>> >>> Access-Control-Allow-Origin: <url> >> I don't think the angle brackets are necessary for forward compat, >> since we can just disallow spaces from the URL. >> >> - Maciej >> >>> >>> This would give us at least something for a forwards compatibility >>> story if we wanted to add to the syntax in future versions of the >>> spec. I really think we are being overly optimistic if we think that >>> the current syntax is the be-all end-all syntax that we'll ever want. >>> >>> For example during the meeting we talked about that banks might want >>> to enforce that the requesting site uses a certain level of >>> encryption, or even a certain certificate. A syntax for that might >> be: >>> Access-Control-Allow-Origin: origin <https://foo.com> encryption sha1 >>> >>> Or that the site in question uses some opt-in XSS mitigation >>> technology (such as the one drafted by Brandon Sterns in a previous >>> thread in this WG). This could be done as >>> >>> Access-Control-Allow-Origin: origin <https://foo.com> require-xss- >>> protection >>> >>> So the formal syntax would be >>> >>> "Access-Control-Allow-Origin:" "<" ("*" | url) ">" >>> >>> / Jonas >>> >>> / Jonas > >
Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2008 16:21:53 UTC