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

Re: [UMP] Request for Last Call

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 12:47:57 +0200
To: "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>
Cc: marcosc@opera.com, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, "Tyler Close" <tyler.close@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <op.vav5l7an64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 12:35:49 +0200, Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com>  
wrote:
> If it is a subset, then everyone who intends on implementing either CORS  
> or UMP intends on implementing UMP.

No, that just happens by accident. I don't think anybody implements CORS  
in the way yet that gives you UMP-type of requests by the way. I also  
still haven't heard of anyone interested in just implementing UMP. And  
without implementor interest for that draft it seems our time would be  
better spent on improving CORS.


>>  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.
>>>
>>
>> This is misleading and false:
>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0433.html
>>
>>
> The text you cite at that link is:
>
> These issues were easier to review in UMP than in CORS because UMP is a  
> much shorter document than CORS. Also, the issues seemed more core to  
> what UMP
> was trying to accomplish.
>
>
> Did you mean to cite this as evidence for your case or ours?

What I mean is that CORS has not had specific review on these issues so it  
is not really a surprise that UMP is more clear on them.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 9 April 2010 10:48:51 GMT

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