- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 13:57:29 -0700
- To: Dirk Pranke <dpranke@google.com>
- Cc: Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>, 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 1:34 PM, Dirk Pranke <dpranke@google.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote: >>> What is the difference between an "authoring guide" and a "specification for >>> web developers"? >> >> The difference is whether or not the normative statements in UMP >> actually are normative for a CORS implementation. This comes down to >> whether or not a developer reading UMP can trust what it says, or must >> he also read the CORS spec. >> >>> The key point of making this distinction is that >>> implementors should be able to look solely at the combined spec. >> >> No, the key point is to relieve developers of the burden of reading >> and understanding CORS. The CORS spec takes on the burden of restating >> UMP in its own algorithmic way so that an implementor can read only >> CORS. > > If figuring out how to have two specs is too much hassle, you could > probably get 90%+ of what people are looking for by putting all of the > normative stuff in the CORS spec and writing an informational note > describing UMP that only discusses the subset of CORS needed for UMP. That is exactly what I propose. I'd also call the informational UMP note developer documentation, and make it easier to read for developers than what a spec could ever be. But that's less important if people feel otherwise. / Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2010 20:58:23 UTC