SRI: Accept dashed hash algorithms.

SRI: Accept dashed hash algorithms.

Postel's law says we should accept both "sha256" and "sha-256", especially
we the spec authors apparently have no idea which we've standardized on. :)

BUG=

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=187102

[Mike West, 2014-12-12 16:29:09]

mkwst@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ jww@chromium.org

[Mike West, 2014-12-12 16:29:09]

WDYT, Joel?

-mike

[jww, 2014-12-12 18:39:06]

On 2014/12/12 16:29:09, Mike West (sick) wrote:
> WDYT, Joel?
> 
> -mike

I'm not a big fan of doing this. I'd rather stay consistent with script-hash in
CSP, which is pretty  clear about no-dash syntax (e.g. "sha256"), and actually
fix the spec. Otherwise, we're going to live an a different kind of inconsistent
world, where we have two (related) specs with different syntaxs allowed.

[Mike West, 2014-12-12 19:04:47]

On 2014/12/12 18:39:06, jww wrote:
> On 2014/12/12 16:29:09, Mike West (sick) wrote:
> > WDYT, Joel?
> > 
> > -mike
> 
> I'm not a big fan of doing this. I'd rather stay consistent with script-hash
in
> CSP, which is pretty  clear about no-dash syntax (e.g. "sha256"), and actually
> fix the spec. Otherwise, we're going to live an a different kind of
inconsistent
> world, where we have two (related) specs with different syntaxs allowed.

I'd suggest we accept the same for CSP, actually. I don't think there's any
value in requiring developers to know that there should or shouldn't be a dash
in the hash name... "Be liberal in what you accept" and so on. *shrug* We should
specify one thing, but we should accept clearly understood variants, especially
when it's not clear that we even know what we're doing. ;)

[jww, 2014-12-12 19:11:06]

In that case, lgtm, with one minor nit.

https://codereview.chromium.org/798043002/diff/1/Source/core/frame/Subresourc...
File Source/core/frame/SubresourceIntegrity.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/798043002/diff/1/Source/core/frame/Subresourc...
Source/core/frame/SubresourceIntegrity.cpp:172: { "sha-256", HashAlgorithmSha256
},
If you're cool with it, I'd rather order the algorithms together (e.g. put the
SHA-256 prefixes together first). I think it would be easier to tell at a glance
what's going on.

[Mike West, 2014-12-13 10:00:30]

The CQ bit was checked by mkwst@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-12-13 10:01:12]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/798043002/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-12-13 12:08:52]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-12-13 12:08:53]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  mac_blink_rel on tryserver.blink
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.blink/builders/mac_blink_rel/builds/35323)

[Mike West, 2014-12-13 19:56:22]

The CQ bit was checked by mkwst@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-12-13 19:56:57]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/798043002/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-12-13 22:09:13]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-12-13 22:09:14]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  mac_blink_rel on tryserver.blink
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.blink/builders/mac_blink_rel/builds/35356)

[Mike West, 2014-12-14 07:59:27]

The CQ bit was checked by mkwst@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-12-14 07:59:36]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/798043002/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-12-14 08:57:48]

Committed patchset #2 (id:20001) as
https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=187102