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 12:02:19 -0700
Message-ID: <i2p63df84f1004201202o84367a75w9097d0fd9c2cac6c@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
> On Apr 20, 2010, at 11:34 AM, Jonas Sicking 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. I don't really see why we
>>> would
>>> need UMP if we have that.
>> It looks ok to me, though somewhat lacking on details. What happens if you
>> call
>> x = new XMLHttpRequest("foopy");
>> or
>> x = new XMLHttpRequest(undefined);
>> You should probably define that the 'anon' argument is a boolean so
>> that the normal conversion rules automatically are applied.
> I kinda hate the boolean argument. I would rather have a syntax where the
> intent is obvious from the source code. A boolean is not very
> self-documenting. In fact I can't even remember right now whether true or
> false is the value that gives you anonymous XHR. Possibilities:
> - Separate AnonXMLHttpRequest constructor
> - Constructor parameter takes an enum value, so you write new
> XMLHttpRequest(ANON) or something like that.
> - Constructor parameter takes a string value, so you write new
> XMLHttpRequest("anon") or ("anonymous") or whatever.
> For any of those options (or similar variants), it would be immediately
> obvious from source what is going on.

I agree that these all are better options. I think I like the enum one
the least, especially since you'd likely have to write

x = new XMLHttpRequest(XMLHttpRequest.ANON);

which would likely result in people writing

x = new XMLHttpRequest(1);

My favorite is the separate constructor.

>> I'm also wondering if the UMP guys are happy with this syntax.
>>>> 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.
>>> Does that mean you would be willing to remove support for the current
>>> header
>>> names? If not I'm not sure if it is worth it. But if you are I will make
>>> a
>>> proposal.
>> Yeah, the goal would definitely be to drop the old header names. We
>> probably couldn't drop them right away, but would need a phase-out
>> period. I think this would still be doable, but the longer we wait the
>> less that is going to be true.
>> Also, it requires everyone to be on board with this change, including
>> webkit and Microsoft.
> What do we know about the current level of CORS deployments? I'd be very
> hesitant to change headers that are actively in use. It might be reasonable
> to change only some of the headers if we learn that, for example,
> "Access-Control-Allow-Origin" is the only one in common use.
> Also, it's hard to answer this in the hypothetical. Do we have a specific
> idea for new header names that would be really great? I'm worried that
> opening up for change will just trigger a giant bikeshed and possibly not
> result in better names in the end.

These are all good questions. I'd say the responsibility to suggest
better names lies with the people that want to change the current

I think phasing out the existing header names could be done relatively
quickly. The one exception is IE which traditionally have been slower
moving as far as backwards incompatible changes goes.

I don't intend to spend a lot of time on this until someone has
suggested a new set of header names and gotten microsoft to say they
are fine with implementing them in XDR.

/ Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 20 April 2010 19:03:12 UTC

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