- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 17:13:25 +0900
- To: "Tyler Close" <tyler.close@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 02:39:31 +0900, Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> > wrote: >> 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. I'm not planning on ignoring anything. Why would I bring it up in the first place if I was? > 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. I've already stated I'm willing to fix those problems. See also: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0106.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0107.html > 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 don't think making CORS depend on UMP makes sense. See also: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0245.html -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Thursday, 22 April 2010 08:14:10 UTC