- From: Brad Porter <bwporter@yahoo.com>
- Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 06:57:26 -0800 (PST)
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "WAF WG \(public\)" <public-appformats@w3.org>
Just as a correction the access-control work was initiated in the voice browser working group as part of voicexml 2.1 and has always been part of the w3c process. Ian and others helped champion continuing the investment where the vbwg had left off with a cross-functional task force. --Brad (Sent from mobile device) On Jan 12, 2008, at 4:59 AM, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com> wrote: On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 13:43:46 +0100, Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com> wrote: And if the market is still deciding (whatever that really means), why bother with the standards process at this point in time anyway? Well, we don't want four different proprietary solutions. It initially looked like this was going to be another XMLHttpRequest, but mostly thanks to Ian (if I remember correctly) it went throug the W3C. It also gives us wider input on the design and while there are constraints we have been able to make changes for the better, such as moving the allowed methods on the Access-Control / <?access-control?> mechanism and introducing the Access-Control HTTP header. And depending on who you ask today's change is also a good improvement. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Saturday, 12 January 2008 14:57:42 UTC