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

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 08:31:41 +0200
To: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
Cc: "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
Message-ID: <55C8454D.3020301@gmx.de>
On 2015-08-10 07:11, Mike West wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 9:34 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de
> <mailto: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? :)

It's hard to predict.

>         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). :)

-> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/jsonbis/charter/>.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 10 August 2015 06:32:13 UTC

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