- From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:30:52 -0800
- To: Devdatta <dev.akhawe@gmail.com>
- Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>, "ext Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>, Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Devdatta <dev.akhawe@gmail.com> wrote: >> I also agree with Jonas on these points. What might make the most >> sense is to let the marketplace decide which model is most useful. >> The most likely outcome (in my mind) is that they are optimized for >> different use cases and will each find their own niche. > > I am not sure this is the case. Seems to me that the CORS API is more > powerful than UM (in that stuff that can be done by UM can be done by > CORS). In the end, if W3 pushes out both UM and CORS, why would a > developer use UM ? I imagine most would end up using CORS (even if > they can achieve their goals with UM), just because its easier and > quicker. Imagine the situation where you host untrusted Caja gadgets in your origin. In that case, you might want to give the gadgets access to UM but not to XMLHttpRequest2. Adam
Received on Monday, 14 December 2009 22:31:55 UTC