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: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:24:29 -0700
Cc: "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-id: <1274FF56-1599-4DC9-8179-5DCD76E5DEFA@apple.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>

On Apr 21, 2010, at 8:57 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 23:37:54 +0900, Mark S. Miller  
> <erights@google.com> wrote:
>> I dislike "AnonXMLHttpRequest" because the request is not necessarily
>> anonymous. For example, the requestor may very well place  
>> identifying info
>> in the body '{"from": "john@example.com", ...}'.
>>
>> I like constructor name already shown at <
>> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/UMP/#ump-api-name>: "UniformRequest".
>
> Since you still work with the XMLHttpRequest object I think it  
> should be in the name of the constructor as well. "Uniform" doesn't  
> tell you much about what it is doing. "Anon" is much clearer in that  
> sense. The user agent will keep the request anonymous. That the  
> author can put identifying information on top of that is up to the  
> author.

I agree that "Anonymous" or "Anon" is more clear as to the purpose  
than "Uniform". I understand why UMP uses that term but I don't think  
it will be obvious to authors reading code.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Wednesday, 21 April 2010 19:25:33 GMT

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