W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webappsec@w3.org > July 2014

Re: [SRI] What should we Hash Redux

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:50:05 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnb78jHeWFYzk2eg9Kee5nbA54YobGTaFq1w5zoskHYySiMMQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Devdatta Akhawe <dev.akhawe@gmail.com>
Cc: "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
I'm not sure why you refer to Fetch as SW. There's only a tiny part of
Fetch that defers SW, otherwise it mostly defines the platform's
URL/networking stack.

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 6:37 PM, Devdatta Akhawe <dev.akhawe@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Per HTTP the payload body is a message body with any content codings removed.
> See mnot's note:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webappsec/2014Mar/0026.html
> Payload removes gzip transfer-encodings but not content encoding.
> Based on the thread, it seemed like there was no simple "spec

The spec seems to suggest there is:


>> the platform today, including XMLHttpRequest, expose the payload body.
> Per above, are you referring here to "with gzip content encoding
> removed" or without?


>> fetch() exposes the message body (as a stream, though the only methods
>> available on that stream undo the content codings and give you the
>> payload body as a result).
> So, fetch, XHR both use body with content codings removed? What
> happens when it is a tar.gz file with Content-Encoding: gzip? Does
> fetch and XHR remove the codings?

No, XMLHttpRequest, <img>, and such do, fetch() does not.

>> <a download> is likely not fully defined.
>> From what I understood from bz it will depend on what is being
>> downloaded and what the file extension situation looks like...
> yeah.  SW can interact with a download too, right? What will that look like?

It seems HTML does not define this in detail at the moment. That would
need to be fixed.

Received on Thursday, 3 July 2014 16:50:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:39 UTC