- From: Alex Russell <alex@dojotoolkit.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:25:43 -0800
- To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>, "WebApps WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Feels like URL vs. URI to me, which for the 80% case is simply bike- shedding. I appreciate that there is a question of specificity and that your clarification is more correct...but is that a good enough reason to do it? Regards On Jan 14, 2009, at 11:14 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:52:50 +0100, Alex Russell > <alex@dojotoolkit.org> wrote: >>>> 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.) >> >> This seems both condescending and useless. Nearly everyone knows >> what "cross domain" and "same domain policy" mean, whereas "cross >> origin" is just what language lawyers say to make regular web >> developers feel bad (AFICT). >> >> Please end the madness. > > Well, both are important (and different, origin is a superset), no? > E.g. document.domain clearly represents a domain, where as the > MessageEvent interface has an origin attribute that gives back an > origin. This very draft defines two headers with the name origin in > them. It seems to me that developers will quickly pick up the > difference.
Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2009 22:27:21 UTC