Re: [websec] of quoted-string header field param value syntax (was: Strict-Transport-Security syntax redux)

[Adam Barth <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Julian Reschke <[e-mail]> 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.

Adam