W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webappsec@w3.org > August 2015

Re: [clear-site-data] header field syntax

From: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 07:11:39 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKXHy=fKRG8Rs38sidvFuw4sSzzzqQMnQ6ibH+duN-rET2_Agw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
Cc: "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 9:34 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
wrote:
>
>
>>     or to adopt JSON (see
>>     <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-http-jfv-latest.html
>> >).
>>
>>
>> Hrm. The response to this seemed mixed at the workshop (though I came
>> into the presentation late). How much support is there in general? Would
>>
>
> None yet.
>

Ok, asked differently: what's the risk that this header would end up being
the only JSON-based header, while the rest of the world moved on to YAML or
something equally silly? :)


> this be the only JSON header? I'd prefer not to break new ground in
>> header syntax... :)
>>
>
> It is "new ground" everytime you use a syntax that doesn't already have a
> parser :-)
>

Well, yes, but there's digging a new hole with a well-known shovel, and
there's digging a new hole with a brand new thing that looks like a shovel
but might have spiky bits all over it. For instance, the JSON definitions
in RFC7159 don't completely overlap with the JSON definitions in ES6 (
http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/6.0/#sec-json-object). I don't
really understand the distinctions, so I'm adding Alex (who has ranted to
me about a possible third or fourth non-overlapping definition as well). :)

-mike
Received on Monday, 10 August 2015 05:12:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:54:14 UTC