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

Re: [UMP] Request for Last Call

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 20:50:12 -0700
Cc: "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>
Message-id: <0302EB96-CBEC-4D57-991D-011A791450A5@apple.com>
To: marcosc@opera.com

On Apr 7, 2010, at 3:01 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:

>
>
>>> 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.

Here's what I can tell you about Apple's current thinking:

- We are currently shipping support CORS via XMLHttpRequest in Safari  
and WebKit.
- We do not plan to drop support for CORS.
- We do not plan to implement UMP directly from the UMP spec.
- If CORS gains a no-credentials subset, and XHR2 gained an API to use  
that subset, we would likely implement that (no firm promises or  
timelines though).
- If the CORS no-credentials subset ended up not matching UMP in some  
detail, then our implementation would follow CORS, not UMP.

The reason for this is that the style of the CORS spec will help us  
understand where the if statements should go in our implementation. We  
do not want to implement UMP as a completely separate code path; we'd  
like it to be a mode of the code that already handles CORS.

Thus, while we may end up implementing UMP by coincidence, our plans  
will likely not be directly affected by the UMP spec, whether or not  
it proceeds to Last Call, or the existence of a UMP test suite. (I'm  
actually not sure how it is even possible to make a UMP test suite  
without having a client API that does UMP processing.)


I cannot speak for the whole WebKit community, since I haven't  
gathered broad input, but it is likely that the broader WebKit  
community would lean in a similar direction. For example, patches to  
add a UMP-specific DOM API, or to add UMP client code wholly separate  
from CORS client code, would likely be rejected.

Also, none of this is set in stone. We reserve the right to change our  
plans in the future.


Regards,
Maciej
Received on Thursday, 8 April 2010 03:50:46 GMT

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