- From: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 14:17:14 +0100
- To: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
- Cc: "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKXHy=fRixM4ivnuKekxVy42yTQPPfp_MHViBJYTWOobz62W3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Good eye. Fixed the typo: https://github.com/w3c/webappsec/commit/a9b163fc39ee75fbc03c491fcd0356b01af72b05 -mike -- Mike West <mkwst@google.com> Google+: https://mkw.st/+, Twitter: @mikewest, Cell: +49 162 10 255 91 Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstrasse 12, 80331 München, Germany Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891 Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg Geschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine Elizabeth Flores (Sorry; I'm legally required to add this exciting detail to emails. Bleh.) On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 2:34 AM, Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org> wrote: > Hi, > > In the current draft of CSP 2, there is this text: > > "Note: Query strings have no impact on matching: the source expression > example.com/file?key=value matches all of https://example.com/file, > https://example.com/file?key=value, https://example.com/file?key=notvalue, > and https://example.com/file?notkey=notvalue." > > This implies that there is a case in which the UA will attempt to match a > URI containing a query component with another one. However, the syntax > doesn't allow the query component, so this can never happen, AFAICT. In > particular, the example source expression example.com/file?key=value is > invalid, right? > > If so, I think the example should be corrected to demonstrate valid CSP > syntax instead of invalid CSP syntax. > > Cheers, > Brian > >
Received on Thursday, 6 November 2014 13:18:05 UTC