- From: Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com>
- Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:52:40 -0800
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 12:39 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > I've only had time for a quick scan, but this looks like a very good proposal. Thanks. > Is there a reason why a full XMLHttpRequest API couldn't be used? I > guess in its most simple incarnation things like setRequestHeader and > .withCredentials would be removed. > > However technically speaking even setRequestHeader as well as > arbitrary HTTP methods could be allowed if preflight requests were > used. They would of course not contain any origin or referrer > information. At a first glance this wouldn't expose any of the CSRF > problems you are trying to avoid. (Granted, it's 12:30am and I've had > a long day :) ). > > Or would you rather wait with that until later? Exactly. We decided to separate Uniform Messaging into a Level One and Level Two specs according to their need for pre-flight. With pre-flight, additional HTTP methods, headers, and request entity media types could all be supported without introducing any of the CSRF-like problems we're trying to avoid. This first document is a draft only of the Level One spec. -- Cheers, --MarkM
Received on Saturday, 21 November 2009 16:53:20 UTC