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

Re: [UMP] Request for Last Call

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 00:01:15 +0200
Message-ID: <p2vb21a10671004071501s8a3ad432neaa6d3f36ce20186@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>
Hi Mark,

On Wednesday, April 7, 2010, Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com> wrote:
> 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.

with no disrespect, who is "we" in this context? How was consensus
gathered and where is the WGs resolution recorded showing endorsement
from the membership of this WG. I only ask because I get the sense
there is a lot of controversy around this draft proposal (remembering
TPAC also).

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

sorry, I don't really understand the sentence above. Can you please rephrase?

>> Are there any
>> vendors considering dropping support for CORS in favor of just supporting
>> UMP?

This question is quite relevant and I think deserves an answer. It
gives the WG a real idea about concensus if there is buy-in to
implement; though for comercial reasons some may not want to make
support public.

FWIW, I'm quite keen to review the draft (as I personally quite liked
the earlier draft and was even about to start reviewing this morning)
but am reluctant to do so because I'm not getting a sense of
significant support.

>> --
>> Anne van Kesteren
>> http://annevankesteren.nl/
> --
>     Cheers,
>     --MarkM

Marcos Caceres
Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2010 22:01:43 UTC

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