Re: [apps-discuss] RFC6454 "the web origin concept" obsoleted?

Daniel Stenberg <> Mon, 18 July 2016 21:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5378A12D0A3 for <>; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 14:00:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.488
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.488 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YQXe86qK-SAw for <>; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 14:00:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1a28:1200:9::2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0C5D12D0A6 for <>; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 14:00:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost.localdomain []) by (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-4) with ESMTPS id u6IL033G001565 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 18 Jul 2016 23:00:03 +0200
Received: from localhost (dast@localhost) by (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) with ESMTP id u6IL02G6001362; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 23:00:02 +0200
X-Authentication-Warning: dast owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 23:00:02 +0200 (CEST)
From: Daniel Stenberg <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
X-fromdanielhimself: yes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] RFC6454 "the web origin concept" obsoleted?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 21:00:10 -0000

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016, wrote:

> * Are the changes to RFC3986 & RFC3987 evidenced in [URL] widely applicable 
> to all URL-utilizing specs and if so, do we obsolete them and point to 
> [URL], or backport the changes to RFC3986bis & RFC3987bis? Or do something 
> else, or do nothing?

The [URL] spec is mostly followed by browsers while the rest of the URL 
parsing world is all over the place but very few non-browsers implement the 
[URL] spec and instead do various mixes of what the RFCs say and the browsers 
do. I blogged about this exact issue a short while ago [1] after having 
realized the [URL] spec says eight thousand slashes in a HTTP URL is fine and 
should be parsed.

I personally am not a fan of neither the [URL] spec style (I find it very hard 
to read), how it is being written or what it says a URL can look like. But I 
know I get a lot of objections and "web compatibility" arguments thrown at me 
when I say so...

So the RFCs are currently lacking a lot when it comes to parsing modern URLs, 
but the [URL] spec is not even trying to make a spec for an entire web 
infrastructure so it isn't a generic solution either. I don't have a good 
answer for where we should go from here.

[1] =