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

Re: UMP / CORS: Implementor Interest

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 12:08:14 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTilTRgLuR1Uy97Pzx8wEJjmH9bHnWWw5wrTDIHz4@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 10:48 AM, 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
> think it's clear that UMP has sufficient implementor interest to
> proceed along the standardization path.

For what it's worth, nobody has or can speak for all of Firefox.

Personally I would prefer to see the "UMP model" be specced as part of
the CORS spec, mostly to avoid inevitable differences between two
specs trying to specify the same thing. And creating an authoring
guide specifically for the UMP security model to help authors that
want to just use UMP. Specs make for bad developer documentation

/ Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2010 19:09:25 UTC

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