Re: UMP / CORS: Implementor Interest

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
>> Hopefully it helps calling out attention to this in a separate thread.
>>
>> In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0043.html
>> Maciej states Apple has no interest in implementing UMP from the UMP
>> specification. (I believe this means that a CORS defined subset that roughly
>> matches UMP is fine.) They want to retain their CORS support.
>>
>> For Opera I can say we are planning on supporting on CORS in due course and
>> have no plans on implementing UMP from the UMP specification.
>>
>> It would be nice if the three other major implementors (i.e. Google,
>> Mozilla, and Microsoft) also stated their interest for both specifications,
>> especially including whether removing their current level of CORS support is
>> considered an option.
>
> I've forwarded your question to chromium-dev:
>
> http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-dev/browse_thread/thread/4ffa158e71ec4613#

Here's a sample response for those not subscribed to chromium-dev:

[[
A couple things to note for background sake:
1) It is our goal that Chrome and Safari should not diverge in web platform
behavior.
2) Maciej is a very influential member of the WebKit and web standards
communities.
Therefore, I think Maciej would need to be convinced before Chrome would
ship UMP.
I confess that I don't have a good enough understanding of UMP vs CORS yet
to comment intelligently on the subject.  I need to do some reading and
educate myself better.  Having read some of what has been linked from this
thread, I still feel that I am missing some background information.
]]

http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-dev/browse_thread/thread/4ffa158e71ec4613/0399f434e4016426?lnk=raot#0399f434e4016426

Kind regards,
Adam

Received on Friday, 23 April 2010 05:48:31 UTC