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

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

From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:17:17 -0800
Message-ID: <7789133a0912141017q6d06fbe2sd9a87bd0af8b1d0c@mail.gmail.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>, "ext Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
I'd be happy to help with #3.

Adam


On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 3:57 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:
> 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 18:18:10 GMT

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