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

Re: UMP / CORS: Implementor Interest

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 08:38:54 -0700
Message-ID: <w2g63df84f1004190838lb3abd861s6e58d5fa5f45d854@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
> Hopefully it helps calling out attention to this in a separate thread.
>
> In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0043.html
> Maciej states Apple has no interest in implementing UMP from the UMP
> specification. (I believe this means that a CORS defined subset that roughly
> matches UMP is fine.) They want to retain their CORS support.
>
> For Opera I can say we are planning on supporting on CORS in due course and
> have no plans on implementing UMP from the UMP specification.
>
> It would be nice if the three other major implementors (i.e. Google,
> Mozilla, and Microsoft) also stated their interest for both specifications,
> especially including whether removing their current level of CORS support is
> considered an option.

As I've said before. I'd be interested in implementing UMP in firefox
if we can come  up with a reasonable API for using it. I.e. a separate
constructor or flag or similar on XHR. This is assuming that UMP is a
reasonable subset of CORS.

There has been suggestions of changing header names. I'm not a big fan
of the current names, but if we're going to fix them, i'd rather see a
coherent strategy for all CORS headers than random spot fixes.

/ Jonas
Received on Monday, 19 April 2010 15:39:48 GMT

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