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

Re: [UMP] Subsetting (was: [XHR2] AnonXMLHttpRequest())

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 17:16:54 +0200
To: "Tyler Close" <tyler.close@gmail.com>, "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.va3wqglm64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 02:28:53 +0200, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> I wouldn't be opposed to implementing UMP, as long as there's a decent
> API for invoking it, and that it's a good subset relative to CORS. I
> think we've talked about various constructors or flags that let you
> use the XHR API together with the UMP protocol.

XMLHttpRequest Level 2 defines a constructor for XMLHttpRequest that  
enforces certain properties of CORS. That gives you something that looks  
like UMP, but you don't need UMP for it. You just need to implement CORS  
and XMLHttpRequest Level 2. (It may be certain aspects need further  
clarification/fixing, but that seems somewhat unrelated of what would be  
the preferred approach.)

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2010 15:17:59 UTC

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