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: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 08:16:54 +0200
To: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
Message-ID: <55CAE4D6.6050305@gmx.de>
On 2015-08-12 08:09, Mike West wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 8:05 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de
> <mailto: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>
>         <mailto: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.

Then why do you have both comma and semicolon-delimited parameters? That 
sounds very confusing.

> 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.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 12 August 2015 06:17:36 UTC

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