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

Re: UMP / CORS: Implementor Interest

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:03:27 +0900
To: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.vbhxn1dg64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 03:34:42 +0900, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> It looks ok to me, though somewhat lacking on details. What happens if  
> you call
>
> x = new XMLHttpRequest("foopy");
> or
> x = new XMLHttpRequest(undefined);

See Web IDL.


> You should probably define that the 'anon' argument is a boolean so
> that the normal conversion rules automatically are applied.

See the Web IDL fragment in the specification.


> I'm also wondering if the UMP guys are happy with this syntax.

I haven't gotten feedback on it so far.


>>> 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.

Okay.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 21 April 2010 05:04:12 GMT

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