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

Re: UMP / CORS: Implementor Interest

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 21:39:26 +0100
Message-ID: <4BEB11FE.5000403@webr3.org>
To: Devdatta <dev.akhawe@gmail.com>
CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Devdatta wrote:
>> As for the "should CORS exist" discussion, I'll bow out of those until
>> we're starting to move towards officially adopting a WG decision one
>> way or another, or genuinely new information is provided which would
>> affect such a decision (for the record, I don't think I've seen any
>> new information provided since last fall's TPAC).
> 
> exactly -- I don't see this thread getting anywhere.

Vendors & Spec writers,

What would be really nice is if you gave us server admins, application 
server-side developers and data publishers a say in this.

Thus I'll propose a new header:

Allow-XHR = "Allow-XHR" ":" Allow-XHR-v
Allow-XHR-v = "none" | "negotiate" | "all"

"none" defines no XHR access

"negotiate" defines the UA should negotiate CORS or UMP headers (leave 
that up to you guys to decide what's best ;)

"all" defines that the UA should process the XHR request as a normal 
client HTTP request leaving all information + headers intact.

Best,

Nathan
Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2010 20:40:56 GMT

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