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 15:44:07 -0700
Message-ID: <h2y4d2fac901004071544m9a4ef84fh375e96629cb3d40a@mail.gmail.com>
To: marcosc@opera.com
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com> wrote:
> 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>
[...]
>>>> 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).

At the time, UMP was not a subset of CORS, so the controversy was UMP
vs CORS. I do not recall any positions other than pro-UMP and
pro-CORS; both on this list and in the TPAC discussions. If I have
forgotten an objection to both UMP and CORS, my apologies. Anyone who
still objects to both proposals, please speak up.

Since then, both CORS and UMP have changed so that UMP is now a subset
of CORS. Since advocacy of CORS includes agreement with this subset,
absent a third position, UMP is the mutually agreed subset of the two
camps.



>> 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?

Sorry. I meant

>From the feedback we've received on UMP, for those issues that CORS
has in common with UMP, it seems clear that the UMP draft's
documentation of these issues is clearer and more readily understood
than the CORS draft.



>
>>> 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
>



-- 
    Cheers,
    --MarkM
Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2010 22:44:36 GMT

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