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: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 08:09:40 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKXHy=e-ROEm_QDxZGb8Dqf0DXKtuXxmajP52ETFuKx-X1oHNw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 8:05 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
wrote:

> On 2015-08-12 07:57, Mike West wrote:
>
>> Thanks again, Julian!
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de
>> <mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de>> wrote:
>>
>>     ABNF is correct; I'd just use two different ABNF productions for
>>     parameter for clarity.
>>
>>
>> I don't understand how that would increase clarity. :)
>>
>
> Because somewhere in the prose, you'll be talking about the use of these
> grammar elements, right?
>

In the current prose, there's no distinction between parameters. That is,
`Clear-Site-Data: a; b; c` has the same effect as `Clear-Site-Data: a, b;
c` and `Clear-Site-Data: a, b, c` and etc.

That is, each header has a semicolon-delimited list of key/value pairs, and
we grab all of them when determining what to do.

At the moment, this is super simple, because everything is just a bare
keyword whose presence is the only important thing. If we make things more
complicated later, we might need to be more stringent with our processing.

-mike
Received on Wednesday, 12 August 2015 06:10:28 UTC

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