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: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 01:03:25 +0900
To: "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>
Cc: "Tyler Close" <tyler.close@gmail.com>, "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.vbir7zqv64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 23:50:40 +0900, Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com>  
wrote:
> 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.

Implementors are interested in an integrated solution (i.e. by value). I  
personally think it would also be of significantly less overhead and make  
it much more clear where the problems are.


>> 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.

As I pointed out we were already on the way to fixing this; I'm not sure  
why you want to revisit that discussion yet again.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 21 April 2010 16:04:25 GMT

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