- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:27:10 +0200
- To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 02:22:03 +0200, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > IMO this is a showstopper for CORS1. Do the right thing: expand the list > of headers allowed and add this functionality now. Ok, I raised this issue on the subject http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/90 so we consider it again. > Indeed. Were other approaches to applying policy to multiple URLs > considered? I and others have certainly tried to think of ways to make this work, but so far we have not found anything satisfactory. >>>>> Probably "resource processing model..." >> >> I made the changes here now. I'd appreciate if you could go over it to >> see it is ok. > > Had a look through the current editors' draft -- looks good to me. > > A few nits: > > In 5.1, "In case the resource has been relocated the resource indicates > whether to share the new URL of the resource." > is wordy; try > "If the resource has been relocated, it indicates whether to share > its new URL." Done. > In 6.2, throughout this section, there are statements like "If the > resource includes zero or more..." Instead of "resource" I think > "response" would be more appropriate, but I may be reading it out of > context. I found two and replaced both as I think you are correct. > In 7.3, "The contents of the resource..." --> "The contents of the > response..." Done. Again many thanks for your comments and timely replies! Cheers, -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 16 June 2009 14:27:47 UTC