W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2009

Re: ACTION-96: Origin removal

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 14:19:22 -0800
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <4DEF3915-A34E-4B7D-A0BE-CF4B704D8790@apple.com>
To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>


On Jan 19, 2009, at 7:19 AM, Simon Pieters wrote:

>
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:39:38 +0100, Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> The issue we are trying to resolve is ISSUE-63[1]: "Origin header: in
>> scope? required for this release?"
>>
>> It sounds like either way the intent is to delegate this to the  
>> IETF.  Both
>> alternatives provide the same answers for the questions posed by  
>> the issue.
>>
>> Given that there is precedent for "commenting out" areas of the  
>> spec which
>> do not enjoy consensus, and that I have recently been informed that
>> sections can be removed from the HTMLWG draft and be retained in  
>> the WHATWG
>> draft, would a decision to remove the description of the Origin  
>> header from
>> the HTMLWG draft without prejudice (i.e. the door is left open for  
>> this to
>> be reopened in the future) be something everybody could live with?
>
> I don't see any reason to rush with removing it from the draft until  
> it's in another spec. Opera is interested in implementing it so we'd  
> rather have it specced somewhere than not specced.

Apple's position is the same. We are looking to implement it and would  
prefer to have some spec (even if it is not in its final location)  
than no spec.

> Also, having it included in the WHATWG version but not in the W3C  
> version could only lead to confusion, so I don't see that as  
> desirable either.

Likewise.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Monday, 19 January 2009 22:20:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:28 GMT