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

Re: UMP / CORS: Implementor Interest

From: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 13:29:11 -0700
Message-ID: <m2i78dc8441004211329w9904188l1f34fdcb840e15bb@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.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. 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.
>
> The email you refer to listed several specific problems with CORS. As
> you've noted, Maciej agreed these were problems. Now you're telling us
> that as editor for the WG you have decided to ignore this detailed
> feedback because it is not yet filed as official Issues against CORS.
> Instead, you are choosing to ignore UMP and press ahead trying to gain
> implementer support for the mechanism defined in CORS, even though you
> know there are agreed problems with it.
>
> A different approach, would be to recognize the value of all the work
> and analysis the WG has put into UMP and so explore how CORS could
> reference and leverage this work. I am happy to collaborate with you
> on this task if you'd like to make the attempt.


I've been watching the CORS/UMP debate from the sidelines. Here's how it
looks to me:
1) UMP folk want to keep UMP a separate spec so that it can (theoretically)
be easier to implement and ship sooner.
2) Browser vendors intend to implement CORS. They don't want to have two
similar but slightly different stacks for making requests, either in
implementation or in what's exposed to developers. So, having UMP as a
separate spec doesn't make sense if it's intended to be a subset (or even
mostly a subset) of CORS. Mozilla might be willing to implement UMP with
some API modifications and Microsoft hasn't voiced an opinion.

Is that an accurate summary?

Are there other advantages to keeping UMP a separate spec other than
concerns of ship dates? Given the lack of vendor support, it doesn't seem
like ship date is really a good argument since the ship date is dependent
on vendors actually implementing this.

Ojan
Received on Wednesday, 21 April 2010 20:30:26 GMT

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