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

Re: [access-control] Rename spec?

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:34:05 +0100
To: "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>, "WebApps WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.unq1a3w264w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:28:49 +0100, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>  
wrote:
> 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
> ]]

Yeah... :-)


> 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".

Domain does not capture significance of the scheme and port, while Origin  
does. I'm updating the draft to use terminology a bit more consistent now  
so it should become less confusing. (E.g. I'm removing cross-site in favor  
of cross-origin as the latter has a clearly defined meaning and the former  
is just used on blogs.)


> 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.

The change will only affect the name of the specification. Header names  
will most definitely not change and I wasn't planning on changing the  
names of definitions either, to be honest.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2009 13:34:58 GMT

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