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 20:14:18 +0100
To: "Alex Russell" <alex@dojotoolkit.org>
Cc: "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>, "WebApps WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.unrg14vz64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:52:50 +0100, Alex Russell <alex@dojotoolkit.org>  
wrote:
>>> 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.)
>
> This seems both condescending and useless. Nearly everyone knows what  
> "cross domain" and "same domain policy" mean, whereas "cross origin" is  
> just what language lawyers say to make regular web developers feel bad  
> (AFICT).
>
> Please end the madness.

Well, both are important (and different, origin is a superset), no? E.g.  
document.domain clearly represents a domain, where as the MessageEvent  
interface has an origin attribute that gives back an origin. This very  
draft defines two headers with the name origin in them. It seems to me  
that developers will quickly pick up the difference.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2009 19:15:33 GMT

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