Re: Minutes, HTTP-WG 8, 10 Dec 1997
Foteos Macrides (MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU)
Wed, 07 Jan 1998 11:57:30 -0500 (EST)
Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com> wrote:
>(revised slightly from previous draft)
>[...]
>Issue PROTECTION-SPACE: People are happy with the current language, but
>current implementations don't behave as specified; the spec doesn't
>break any existing implementation. We'll go forward with the current
>language in rev-01.
Note that the current revision still does not address the
issue of the implied protection space for Basic proxy authentication
(all Request-URIs via the proxy).
>[...]
>State Management:
>[...]
>Following the slide presentation, there was discussion on the privacy
>considerations in the draft. Ted Hardie: In Comment-URL, the URL could
>potentially be a non-HTTP URL, and this issue needs to be addressed.
I am puzzled by this statement. In early drafts, there was
no restriction on the scheme for CommentURLs. For security reasons,
the Lynx field test implementation limited them to server-based
schemes (e.g., http(s), gopher, ftp, wais). Subsequent drafts
explicitly limited CommentURLs to http (and https by implication :)
and the implementation in the recent Lynx v2.7.2 release so restricts
them. Isn't this a closed issue?
Fote
=========================================================================
Foteos Macrides Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research
MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU 222 Maple Avenue, Shrewsbury, MA 01545
=========================================================================