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

Re: UMP / CORS: Implementor Interest

From: Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 15:36:32 -0400
Message-Id: <C1355CAD-C392-4C9D-86A5-59B45EEE4EAF@nokia.com>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
To: ext Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>
Jonas, Anne, Tlyer, All,

On May 11, 2010, at 3:08 PM, ext Jonas Sicking wrote:

> 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.

Yes, I would also prefer that. Are there any technical reason(s) this  
can't be done?

-Art Barstow

> Specs make for bad developer documentation
> anyway.
Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2010 19:37:29 GMT

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