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
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2010 22:01:43 GMT

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