On Fri, 30 May 2008 20:08:24 +0200, Jonas Sicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
However IMHO it makes more sense as an extra level of security. To deal
with servers supporting actions that the server administrator is unaware
of or wasn't thinking of when enabling Access-Control.
Ok. It's not really clear to me whether this extra level is needed or
desired, as it further complicates the original proposal. With all the
other proposals you're making it overall becomes much more complex and
harder for authors to grasp what they have to do to get it right.
I'd be interested in hearing feedback from Maciej / Apple / WebKit on this
proposal.
Further, the way we controlled methods before was much more complex than
my proposal. Different sites could have different allowed methods. We
had to issue new prefligh requests every time a new method was used. The
syntax allowed for DELETE being listed as an allowed method when we
checked for POST, but then DELETE wouldn't actually be allowed when we
checked for DELETE, etc.
The new proposal is much simpler. Both syntax wise for the server
administrator, and for the implementation.
If I understand correctly what you're suggesting it would indeed be
simpler, yes. (Though there's also added complexity, as we didn't have a
policy for HTTP headers.)
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
