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

Re: UMP / CORS: Implementor Interest

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 10:03:29 +0200
To: "Tyler Close" <tyler.close@gmail.com>
Cc: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, "Adam Barth" <w3c@adambarth.com>, "Arthur Barstow" <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
Message-ID: <op.vck1z3my64w2qv@annevk-t60>
Since the other points in this thread have already been addressed by  
others, I thought I'd just add my thoughts on this issue (renaming and  
response header filtering).

On Tue, 11 May 2010 20:17:17 +0200, Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>  
wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>  
> wrote:
>> I think we first need to figure out whether we want to rename headers or
>> not, before any draft goes to Last Call, especially if UMP wants to  
>> remain a subset of some sorts.
>
> AFAICT, your renaming proposal does not cover this section of CORS. I
> think the two efforts can proceed in parallel. I look forward to your
> feedback on this topic.

Renaming would effect how the response header is named. Keeping  
consistency in the header names is important. If we decide to rename  
headers it would most likely be named CORS-Expose-Headers and otherwise it  
would most likely be named Access-Control-Expose-Headers.

Renaming also affects UMP in another way, namely the name of the  
Access-Control-Allow-Origin header.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2010 08:04:25 GMT

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