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

Re: [UMP] Request for Last Call

From: Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 13:19:31 -0700
Message-ID: <y2s4d2fac901004071319x9840778fgd106a9b9bec650f7@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> 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 [subset] of CORS I wonder why we need it.

Because it is the subset of CORS on which we have consensus.

Also, the feedback we've received on UMP show that UMP documents this
subset more understandably than the CORS spec does.


> Are there any
> vendors considering dropping support for CORS in favor of just supporting
> UMP?
>
>
> --
> Anne van Kesteren
> http://annevankesteren.nl/
>
>



-- 
    Cheers,
    --MarkM
Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2010 20:20:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:38 GMT