W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2010

CORS Last Call status/plans? [Was: Re: [UMP] Request for Last Call]

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 10:06:55 -0400
Message-Id: <A7107EB3-156B-4C8A-B142-3DF6113A977D@nokia.com>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>
To: ext Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
What is the status and plan to get CORS ready for Last Call?

I see the following related "Raised" Issues:

  Reduce the length of the header names?

  Exposing more (~infinite) response headers

  confused deputy problem

  CORS does not define the effect of the credentials flag in  
sufficient detail

And the latest ED includes 3 "red block" Issues.

-Art Barstow

[CORS] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/access-control/

On Apr 7, 2010, at 5:54 AM, ext Anne van Kesteren wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 22:12:33 +0200, Tyler Close  
> <tyler.close@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> I've uploaded a new draft of the Uniform Messaging Policy to:
>> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/UMP/
>> This version adopts the same redirect handling specified by CORS.  
>> With
>> this change I believe there are no outstanding issues with UMP.
>> The latest version also includes clarifications on the use of HTTP
>> caching in uniform requests, as well as the prohibition of client
>> authenticated connections for uniform requests. Both of these changes
>> reflect clarifications discussed on the list.
>> I believe the current editor's draft of UMP reflects all feedback
>> received on the FPWD and is ready to proceed to Last Call.
> Since this is just a superset of CORS I wonder why we need it. Are  
> there
> any vendors considering dropping support for CORS in favor of just
> supporting UMP?
> -- 
> Anne van Kesteren
> http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2010 14:08:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:24 UTC