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

Re: UMP / CORS: Implementor Interest

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:39:20 -0700
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-id: <C9AC25F6-66D7-452C-824F-8DA43FEE40A8@apple.com>
To: Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>

On Apr 20, 2010, at 9:27 AM, Tyler Close 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?

It should be made exactly like UMP, either by changing CORS, or  
changing UMP, or some combination of the two. A list of differences  
between UMP and CORS "anonymous mode" would be most helpful.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 20 April 2010 18:39:54 GMT

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