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

Re: UMP / CORS: Implementor Interest

From: Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 07:50:40 -0700
Message-ID: <z2w4d2fac901004210750k726566dwa3bfaa8592c51773@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 01:27:10 +0900, Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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?
>>
>
> Because I've yet to receive detailed feedback / proposals on CORS on what
> needs changing.


How are "Why can't it be made exactly like UMP?" and "Ideally, I'd like UMP
to be folded into CORS by reference rather than by value, ..." not a
detailed proposal? It's not a long proposal, because the proposal is simple
enough to be clear and short.



> In another thread Maciej asked you whether you would like to file the
> appropriate bugs and the he would do so if you did not get around to it. I
> have not seen much since.
>
>
>
> --
> Anne van Kesteren
> http://annevankesteren.nl/
>
>


-- 
    Cheers,
    --MarkM
Received on Wednesday, 21 April 2010 14:51:14 GMT

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