- From: Patrick Toomey <patrick.toomey@github.com>
- Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 16:29:49 +0000
- To: Emily Stark <estark@google.com>, Evan J Johnson <e@ejj.io>
- Cc: "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAN4Q8dBsDCvBN66a=+5_pzB92jg3Pt39zLY-87ed1cArvZUBEg@mail.gmail.com>
Doh..I just realized I misread the example in the spec, and it wouldn't work with a strictness ordering, since the goal there was to use unsafe-url if it was supported. On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 10:23 AM Patrick Toomey <patrick.toomey@github.com> wrote: > Was there discussion of doing something like csp for multiple policies, > where the meta tag/subsequent policies can only make the policy more > strict? If there was some strictness ordering defined (no referrer on one > end and unsafe-url on the other), you could still support the multiple > policy fallback example you mentioned by listing the most lenient policy > first and the most strict policy last. Browsers that didn't recognize one > would just skip it. Whereas, browsers that did recognize all policies would > take the last/most strict one. > On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 10:12 AM Emily Stark <estark@google.com> 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 > > > >
Received on Sunday, 16 October 2016 16:30:27 UTC