Re: ACTION-96: Origin removal

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 
> 
> On Jan 19, 2009, at 7:19 AM, Simon Pieters wrote:
> 
>>
>> On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:39:38 +0100, Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The issue we are trying to resolve is ISSUE-63[1]: "Origin header: in
>>> scope? required for this release?"
>>>
>>> It sounds like either way the intent is to delegate this to the 
>>> IETF.  Both
>>> alternatives provide the same answers for the questions posed by the 
>>> issue.
>>>
>>> Given that there is precedent for "commenting out" areas of the spec 
>>> which
>>> do not enjoy consensus, and that I have recently been informed that
>>> sections can be removed from the HTMLWG draft and be retained in the 
>>> WHATWG
>>> draft, would a decision to remove the description of the Origin 
>>> header from
>>> the HTMLWG draft without prejudice (i.e. the door is left open for 
>>> this to
>>> be reopened in the future) be something everybody could live with?
>>
>> I don't see any reason to rush with removing it from the draft until 
>> it's in another spec. Opera is interested in implementing it so we'd 
>> rather have it specced somewhere than not specced.
> 
> Apple's position is the same. We are looking to implement it and would 
> prefer to have some spec (even if it is not in its final location) than 
> no spec.

Somehow we are talking past one another, and I don't understand where 
the confusion is.  I'm sure we all have a vested interest in HTTPbis 
too, but there isn't any plans (I hope!) to duplicate that effort here 
too, is there?  Heck, I'm kinda looking forward to the inauguration 
tomorrow, let's make sure it happens by including it too?  (caption for 
the humor impaired: that's a *JOKE*).

If the right place to do the Origin header is here, let's make that 
decision.  If the right place to do the Origin header is in the IETF, 
lets not attempt to do an end-run around that process.  I have some 
experience with the IETF, they are a nice and friendly bunch of people. 
  Larry has considerably more experience than I, and has offered to 
help.  And both of us feel that pursing it there and keeping it here 
"just in case" is a horribly bad idea.

And it looks like work is progressing:

   http://webblaze.cs.berkeley.edu/2009/origin/origin.txt

If people insist, I can check with the IETF/W3C Liaison's, but I am 
quite confident that they will agree.

>> Also, having it included in the WHATWG version but not in the W3C 
>> version could only lead to confusion, so I don't see that as desirable 
>> either.
> 
> Likewise.

That probably deserves a separate email with a separate subject line, 
but we do have a real issue that needs to be addressed.

Section 1.5.4 needs to be removed or replaced.  I'm paraphrasing here, 
but Maciej's input is that it is unnecessary, Lachy's and Chris's input 
is that this section doesn't set out what it is intended to do.  Any of 
you three are welcome to correct me if I got this wrong.  Ian's response:

     if the HTMLWG has a strong desire to remove this section, I
     can certainly remove it from the HTMLWG draft

At this point I feel confident in saying that section 1.5.4 does not 
enjoy consensus.

As described above, Origin either belongs in the IETF or W3C: pick one.

And, yes, I'd like the WHATWG and W3C specs to match; but not at the 
expense of including sections which clearly do not enjoy consensus nor 
unnecessarily create conflict with the IETF.

> Regards,
> Maciej

- Sam Ruby

Received on Monday, 19 January 2009 22:46:04 UTC