RE: Comments on: Access Control for Cross-site Requests

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, Close, Tyler J. wrote:
>
> It seems like we should have numbers about the upgrade cycle for the 
> dominant client, Internet Explorer, before it is reasonable to draw any 
> conclusions. The same reference you used for Firefox and Opera reports 
> the following for IE:
> 
> IE6: 40.24%
> IE7: 36.84%
> 
> And that's for the *total browser market*, not of IE's share of the 
> market.

I don't think it would be fair on Microsoft to use these numbers here; 
they have been having uptake problems in general with their software 
recently and so I wouldn't really consider this representative of client 
upgrade trends in general. I don't see any reason to believe that uptake 
of a new version of IIS would be faster than a new version of IE in the 
current climate -- in fact IIS is more tied to OS releases than IE, so by 
your own arguments that makes IE more likely to rev faster than IIS.

Anyway, that's why I didn't look at the numbers for Microsoft's products 
released in the last couple of years. I should have mentioned that in my 
last e-mail.


> The other issues you raise seem more like social ones. I think it makes 
> sense to reach out to the Apache developers to get their opinion on this 
> decision before going with the much more complicated design.

I'll leave that decision up to the spec's editor; I just wanted to provide 
numbers to back up the earlier claim I made.


> I think the WG must be absolutely certain that requiring a server change 
> will delay adoption of the feature for years, before accepting these 
> costs. I still suspect the server deployment time will be hidden by the 
> client deployment time.

In my opinion the data says otherwise.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Friday, 21 December 2007 22:10:50 UTC