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>

> 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.

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:50 UTC