Re: [REFERRER] Call for Consensus: Referrer Policy to Candidate Recommenation

What should I use as deadline date?

On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 7:11 PM Brad Hill <hillbrad@gmail.com> wrote:

> Great!  This CfC successfully completed.  Thank you for your patience.
> Can you prepare a CR draft with a date of January 12th and we'll get it in
> the publication queue?
>
> :)
>
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 7:01 AM Jochen Eisinger <eisinger@google.com>
> wrote:
>
> The PR was closed, and I landed the updates to the "integration with CSS"
> section (and a long tail of changes to the metadata section to make
> specberus happy), and managed to push a new WD to
> https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-referrer-policy-20161222/
>
> best
> -jochen
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:07 PM Brad Hill <hillbrad@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I am excited that Referrer Policy is ready for CR.  One thing I'd like to
> consider is some minor changes to the algorithms related to determine a
> request's referrer in support of https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/1917
>  and https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/1918, which suggest that
> location.ancestorOrigins should also be redacted according to a parent
> document's default referrer policy.
>
> I believe it would be enough to list the values of Request used in that
> algorithm explicit inputs. I'll try and put together a PR for that today.
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 1:53 PM Evan J Johnson <e@ejj.io> wrote:
>
> Ah thanks Emily. I can see it's a hard question to answer now. Whatever is
> processed last, but with one edge cases. If I understand the precedence is
> (from highest to lowest):
>
> 0. ReferrerPolicy is no-referrer, or rel="noreferrer".
> 1. Implicit, via inheritence.
> 3. Any other referrerpolicy attribute that is not "no-referrer"
> 4. Meta-tag.
> 5.HTTP Header
>
> evan
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 16, 2016, at 09:09 AM, Emily Stark wrote:
>
> Hi Evan,
> If the browser recognizes the policy in a meta tag as a valid policy, then
> it would override any policy set by a header for the document. This is
> mentioned in
> https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-referrer-policy/#unknown-policy-values
> ("the value of the latest one will be used"), though I'd happily take
> suggestions on how to make it clearer!
> Emily
>
> On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Evan J Johnson <e@ejj.io> wrote:
>
>
> Glad to see this is being finished!
>
> I'm curious the order of precedence of the 5 different ways to set a
> referrer policy.
>
> This is very confusing in my opinion (something I will begin to say about
> a lot of specs). The spec reads like the following is possible, unless I'm
> missing something:
>
> 1. Blanket referrer policy set by header.
> 2. Different referrer policy set by meta tag.
> 3. Third policy as an attribute.
>
> I would assume the the most specific policy would win, in this case the
> noreferrer attribute, but which policy wins out of 1 and 2?
>
>
> evan
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2016, at 09:18 PM, Emily Stark wrote:
>
> This is a call for consensus of the WebAppSec WG to request advancement of
> Referrer Policy to Candidate Recommendation.
>
> The text for the proposed CR draft is to be the Editor's Draft at:
> https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-referrer-policy/
>
> This call for consensus will expire on 23-October-2016. Positive feedback
> is encouraged and lack of feedback is considered "no objection". Please
> send feedback to: public-webappsec@w3.org with a subject line beginning
> with '[REFERRER]'.
>
> Thanks,
> Emily
>
>
>
>