W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2009

Re: [access-control] Rename spec?

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 08:28:49 -0500
Message-Id: <76B934C1-A25F-4FE1-A2BC-7C93E65FB7BE@nokia.com>
To: ext Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>

Hi,

On Jan 13, 2009, at 11:50 AM, ext Anne van Kesteren wrote:

>
> I know some people (e.g. Ian) don't like the idea, but it seems the  
> name "Access Control for Cross-Site Requests" confuses people,  
> especially the "Access Control" part:
>
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/12/10-minutes#item03
>
>   'TBL: Calling it Access Control" is misleading. It's about privacy.'
>
> Henri Sivonen suggested "Cross-Origin Data Sharing" on IRC the  
> other day:
>
>   http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20090112#l-139
>
> Since it can be about more than just data, e.g. images, "Cross- 
> Origin Resource Sharing" might be more appropriate. Keeping the  
> header names the same seems fine, they're just opague strings, but  
> at least making it more clear what the specification is about might  
> help people.

It's been over a year since we last changed the name of this spec so  
I guess it's about time we renamed it again :-):

[[
Authorizing Read Access to XML Content Using the <?access-control?>  
Processing Instruction 1.0

Enabling Read Access for Web Resources

Access Control for Cross-site Requests
]]

I do agree the title is important and support either of the proposed  
new titles (preference goes with "Resource"). One question I have  
here is whether "Domain" would be more accurate than "Origin".

The only concern I have is whether a name change would be problematic  
to anyone that may have implemented the latest Draft. OTOH, a WD is  
always at risk of being substantially changed.

-Regards, Art Barstow
Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2009 13:30:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:29 GMT