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: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:36:23 -0700
Message-ID: <k2s63df84f1004201136obb010fd7t38d0bceaa709eb01@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:38:54 +0900, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Have you looked at the proposal I put in XHR2? It sets certain flags in CORS
>> that make it more or less the same as UMP.
>
> Why can't it be made exactly like UMP? All of the requirements in UMP
> have been discussed at length and in great detail on this list by some
> highly qualified people. The current UMP spec reflects all of that
> discussion. By your own admission, the CORS spec has not received the
> same level of review for these features. Why hasn't CORS adopted the
> UMP solution?

Would you be fine with "folding" UMP into CORS if more of the wording
from UMP is used in the CORS spec?

Are the differences only editorial or are there different header
names/values as well?

/ Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 20 April 2010 18:37:16 GMT

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