W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2009

Next Steps for CORS and Uniform Messaging [Was: Re: CORS versus Uniform Messaging?]

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 06:57:21 -0500
Message-Id: <E0A03A74-70E6-473D-9D09-C4E03BA9EFD5@nokia.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>, "ext Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Hi All,

Given the feedback on this thread, my proposal on the next steps are:

1. Mark and/or Tyler prepare a FPWD of UM

2. Anne proactively drive CORS to LCWD

3. Before we begin a CfC to publish #1 and #2 above, some combination  
of the active participants in the CORS and UM discussions (Adam,  
Anne, Jonas, Maciej, Hixie, Tyler, Mark, etc.) create a comparison  
document of CORS and UM (e.g. pros, cons, overlaps, etc.) as Nikunj  
did for the group's two DB specs [1]. This document does not  
necessarily need to be exhaustive. Who can commit to helping with  
this document?

-Art Barstow

[1] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Database


On Dec 10, 2009, at 1:53 PM, Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote:

> CORS and Uniform Messaging People,
>
> We are now just a few weeks away from the February 2006 start of what
> has now become the CORS spec. In those four years, the model has been
> significantly improved, Microsoft deployed XDR, we now have the
> Uniform Messaging counter-proposal. Meanwhile, the industry doesn't
> have an agreed standard to address the important use cases.
>
> Although we are following the Darwinian model of competing specs with
> Web SQL Database and Indexed Database API, I believe I'm not alone in
> thinking competing specs in the CORS and UM space is not desirable
> and perhaps even harmful.
>
> Ideally, the group would agree on a single model and this could be
> achieved by converging CORS + UM, abandoning one model in deference
> to the other, etc.
>
> Can we all rally behind a single model?
>
> -Art Barstow
>
>
> On Dec 4, 2009, at 1:30 PM, ext Mark S. Miller wrote:
>
>> We intend that Uniform Messaging be adopted instead of CORS. We  
>> intend
>> that those APIs that were expected to utilize CORS (SSE, XBL) instead
>> utilize Uniform Messaging. As for XHR2, we intend to propose a  
>> similar
>> UniformRequest that utilizes Uniform Messaging.
>>
>> We intend the current proposal, Uniform Messaging Level One, as an
>> alternative to the pre-flight-less subset of CORS. As for the
>> remaining Level Two issues gated on pre-flight, perhaps these are  
>> best
>> addressed after we settle the SOP restrictions that server-side app
>> authors may count on, which therefore protocols such as CORS and
>> Uniform Messaging must uphold.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Arthur Barstow
>> <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:
>>> Mark, Tyler,
>>>
>>> On Nov 23, 2009, at 12:33 PM, ext Tyler Close wrote:
>>>
>>>> I made some minor edits and formatting improvements to the document
>>>> sent out on Friday. The new version is attached. If you read the
>>>> prior
>>>> version, there's no need to review the new one. If you're just
>>>> getting
>>>> started, use the attached copy.
>>>
>>> Would you please clarify your intent with your Uniform Messaging
>>> proposal
>>> vis--vis CORS and your expectation(s) from the Working Group?
>>>
>>> -Art Barstow
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 14 December 2009 11:58:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:35 GMT