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 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>
Message-ID: <op.vbj04nye64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 02:39:31 +0900, Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>  
> 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:

> 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:

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Thursday, 22 April 2010 08:14:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:24 UTC