On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.resc...@gmx.de> wrote: > On 2012-01-15 23:24, Adam Barth wrote: >> >> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Julian Reschke<julian.resc...@gmx.de> >> wrote: >>> >>> On 2012-01-15 22:53, Adam Barth wrote: >>>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>> It's definitely messy. >>>> >>>> I don't think it matters much what we write in this document. Even if >>>> we spec quoted-string, I doubt many folks will implement it. However, >>>> we can deal with that problem when it comes time to add extension >>>> values that actually used quoted-string. >>>> ... >>> >>> >>> Apologies for the direct question: just 14 days ago you stated that you >>> did >>> not implement q-s in Chrome, and that you don't intend to: >>> >>> AB> Chrome does not (and will not) implement quoted-string for the STS >>> AB> header for the reasons I've explained previously. You're welcome to >>> AB> file bugs, but I'm just going to close them WONTFIX. >>> >>> That's somewhat different from what you say now. >>> >>> Is "the extensions do not exist yet" the excuse for not implementing what >>> the spec says? Will you be around for fixing Chrome when the first bug >>> reports because of broken extensions come in? >> >> I don't plan to implement quoted-string in Chrome. I'm saying that >> I'm not going to object to writing quoted-string into the spec. I >> still think it's a bad idea, but I'm dropping my objection to it. > > So when the bug reports come in, *somebody else* is going to fix Chrome? > > I really want to know.
I doubt it will be high on anyone's priority list. If you'd like to implement it, you're welcome to submit a patch. (Of course, I can't promise that the patch will be accepted.) Adam _______________________________________________ websec mailing list websec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec
