- From: Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:53:54 -0500
- To: "ext Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>, Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
CORS and Uniform Messaging People, We are now just a few weeks away from the February 2006 start of what has now become the CORS spec. In those four years, the model has been significantly improved, Microsoft deployed XDR, we now have the Uniform Messaging counter-proposal. Meanwhile, the industry doesn't have an agreed standard to address the important use cases. Although we are following the Darwinian model of competing specs with Web SQL Database and Indexed Database API, I believe I'm not alone in thinking competing specs in the CORS and UM space is not desirable and perhaps even harmful. Ideally, the group would agree on a single model and this could be achieved by converging CORS + UM, abandoning one model in deference to the other, etc. Can we all rally behind a single model? -Art Barstow On Dec 4, 2009, at 1:30 PM, ext Mark S. Miller wrote: > We intend that Uniform Messaging be adopted instead of CORS. We intend > that those APIs that were expected to utilize CORS (SSE, XBL) instead > utilize Uniform Messaging. As for XHR2, we intend to propose a similar > UniformRequest that utilizes Uniform Messaging. > > We intend the current proposal, Uniform Messaging Level One, as an > alternative to the pre-flight-less subset of CORS. As for the > remaining Level Two issues gated on pre-flight, perhaps these are best > addressed after we settle the SOP restrictions that server-side app > authors may count on, which therefore protocols such as CORS and > Uniform Messaging must uphold. > > > On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Arthur Barstow > <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote: >> Mark, Tyler, >> >> On Nov 23, 2009, at 12:33 PM, ext Tyler Close wrote: >> >>> I made some minor edits and formatting improvements to the document >>> sent out on Friday. The new version is attached. If you read the >>> prior >>> version, there's no need to review the new one. If you're just >>> getting >>> started, use the attached copy. >> >> Would you please clarify your intent with your Uniform Messaging >> proposal >> vis-à-vis CORS and your expectation(s) from the Working Group? >> >> -Art Barstow
Received on Thursday, 10 December 2009 18:55:28 UTC