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: Tue, 11 May 2010 11:41:38 -0700
Message-ID: <p2m78dc8441005111141s617f0f73ra74b97877c6ba78b@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 May 2010 19:48:57 +0200, Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> >> Firefox, Chrome and Caja have now all declared an interest in
> >> implementing UMP. Opera and Safari have both declared an interest in
> >> implementing the functionality defined in UMP under the name CORS. I
>

I would put Chrome in the same camp as Opera and Safari based off the
chromium-dev thread. Although, I think the distinction might lie in the
misunderstanding below.


> >> In the discussion on chromium-dev, Adam Barth wrote:
> >>
> >> """
> >> Putting these together, it looks like we want a separate UMP
> >> specification for web developers and a combined CORS+UMP specification
> >> for user agent implementors.  Consequently, I think it makes sense for
> >> the working group to publish UMP separately from CORS but have all the
> >> user agent conformance requirements in the combined CORS+UMP document.
> >> """
>
<snip>

> >> I think this is a satisfactory compromise and conclusion to the
> >> current debate. Anne, are you willing to adopt this strategy? If so, I
> >> think there needs to be a normative statement in the CORS spec that
> >> identifies the algorithms and corresponding inputs that implement UMP.
> >
> > I don't understand. As far as I can tell Adam suggests making UMP an
> > authoring guide.
>
> I read Adam as saying the UMP specification should be published. The
> words "authoring guide" don't appear. I believe his reference to a
> benefit for web developers refers to an opinion expressed earlier in
> the thread that the UMP specification is more easily understood by web
> developers.
>

What is the difference between an "authoring guide" and a "specification for
web developers"? The key point of making this distinction is that
implementors should be able to look solely at the combined spec.

Ojan
Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2010 18:42:29 GMT

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