Latest draft:
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/waf/access-control/Overview.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8
The current production for an access item is as follows:
access-item ::= scheme "://" domain-pattern ( ":" port )? | "*"
domain-pattern ::= subdomain | "*." subdomain
When port is omitted it defaults to the default port for the scheme being
used. It has been proposed to allow people to wildcard scheme and port as
you're likely in control the completely domain. This would allow:
*://example.org:*
for instance. But not:
example.org
The problem is that wilcarding them no longer allows port to default to
the scheme being used in a case like:
*://example.org
Maybe we should do away with the port defaulting though. How do people
feel about that? If you omit port or scheme it would match regardless of
the port or scheme used by the request URL (for those parts). So scheme
and port would default to being wildcarded when omitted in a way. This
would allow:
example.org
http://example.org
example.org:80
And disallow:
*://example.org
example.org:*
This approach is probably the simplest way of dealing with it. The new
syntax for access item would become:
access-item ::= ( scheme "://" )? domain-pattern ( ":" port )? | "*"
domain-pattern ::= subdomain | "*." subdomain
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
