On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 09:43:29 +0200, Jonas Sicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The only thing that i _know_ of is that:
http://foo.com
and
http://foo.com:80
are the same origin but have different string representations.
Yes, authors would have to use the former. (The former is also what Origin
will tell them as well.)
I have also heard that some UAs are able to handle non-ascii characters
in header values by somehow specifying an encoding. I don't really know
how that works, but for those UAs the following to origins would be
equivalent:
http://www.xn--jrnspikar-v2a.com
and
http://www.järnspikar.com
Using the latter is non-conforming for Origin and also non-conforming for
Access-Control-Allow-Origin, which per its current definition either
mathces Origin literally or is a wildcard. So currently RFC 2047
extensions are simply not supported (and not needeD) by the specification.
Given that interoperability on encoded-word is very poor I suggest we keep
it that way.
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
