W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: [cors] Review

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:27:10 +0200
To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.uvmfrkht64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 02:22:03 +0200, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> IMO this is a showstopper for CORS1. Do the right thing: expand the list  
> of headers allowed and add this functionality now.

Ok, I raised this issue on the subject

  http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/90

so we consider it again.


> Indeed. Were other approaches to applying policy to multiple URLs  
> considered?

I and others have certainly tried to think of ways to make this work, but so far we have not found anything satisfactory.


>>>>> Probably "resource processing model..."
>>
>> I made the changes here now. I'd appreciate if you could go over it to  
>> see it is ok.
>
> Had a look through the current editors' draft -- looks good to me.
>
> A few nits:
>
> In 5.1, "In case the resource has been relocated the resource indicates  
> whether to share the new URL of the resource."
> is wordy; try
>    "If the resource has been relocated, it indicates whether to share  
> its new URL."

Done.


> In 6.2, throughout this section, there are statements like "If the  
> resource includes zero or more..." Instead of "resource" I think  
> "response" would be more appropriate, but I may be reading it out of  
> context.

I found two and replaced both as I think you are correct.


> In 7.3, "The contents of the resource..." --> "The contents of the  
> response..."

Done.


Again many thanks for your comments and timely replies!

Cheers,


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 16 June 2009 14:27:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:31 GMT