W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: [cors] Unrestricted access

From: Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 10:39:49 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTik9yTy__cRYnFKOEDbGe5bfXjJWpkjMeBwlPglN@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-webapps@w3.org, Jaka Jančar <jaka@kubje.org>
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 12:35:02 +0200, Jaka Jančar <jaka@kubje.org> wrote:
>>> What I'd like is a global (per-host) way to disable these limitations all
>>> at once, giving XHR unrestricted access to the host, just like native apps
>>> have it.
>> It used to be a mostly "global" per-resource switch, but the security folks
>> at Mozilla thought that was too dangerous and we decided to go with the
>> granular approach they proposed. This happened during a meeting in the
>> summer of 2008 at Microsoft. I do not believe anything has changed meanwhile
>> so this will probably not happen.
> This does not match my recollection of our requirements. The most
> important requirements that we had was that it was possible to opt in
> on a very granular basis, and that it was possible to opt in without
> getting cookies. Also note that the latter wasn't possible before we
> requested it and so this users requirements would not have been
> fulfilled if it wasn't for the changes we requested.
> Anyhow if we want to reopen discussions about syntax for the various
> headers that cors uses, for example to allow '*' as value, then I'm ok
> with that. Though personally I'd prefer to just ship this thing as
> it's a long time coming.

Unless IE is soon to indicate support for all of the extra CORS
headers, pre-flight requests and configuration caching, the decision
should be to drop these unsupported features from the specification
and come up with a solution that can achieve consensus among widely
deployed browsers. I thought that was the declared policy for HTML5.
As you know, I also think that is the right decision for many
technical and security reasons.

Jaka's request is reasonable and what the WG is offering in response
is unreasonable. I expect many other web application developers will
have needs similar to Jaka's. Meeting those needs with a simple
solution is technically feasible. The politics seem to be much more


"Waterken News: Capability security on the Web"
Received on Wednesday, 14 July 2010 17:40:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:10 UTC