- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:34:05 +0100
- To: "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>, "WebApps WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:28:49 +0100, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote: > It's been over a year since we last changed the name of this spec so I > guess it's about time we renamed it again :-): > > [[ > Authorizing Read Access to XML Content Using the <?access-control?> > Processing Instruction 1.0 > > Enabling Read Access for Web Resources > > Access Control for Cross-site Requests > ]] Yeah... :-) > I do agree the title is important and support either of the proposed new > titles (preference goes with "Resource"). One question I have here is > whether "Domain" would be more accurate than "Origin". Domain does not capture significance of the scheme and port, while Origin does. I'm updating the draft to use terminology a bit more consistent now so it should become less confusing. (E.g. I'm removing cross-site in favor of cross-origin as the latter has a clearly defined meaning and the former is just used on blogs.) > The only concern I have is whether a name change would be problematic to > anyone that may have implemented the latest Draft. OTOH, a WD is always > at risk of being substantially changed. The change will only affect the name of the specification. Header names will most definitely not change and I wasn't planning on changing the names of definitions either, to be honest. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2009 13:34:58 UTC