- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 10:06:55 -0400
- To: ext Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>
What is the status and plan to get CORS ready for Last Call? I see the following related "Raised" Issues: Reduce the length of the header names? http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/89 Exposing more (~infinite) response headers http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/90 confused deputy problem http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/108 CORS does not define the effect of the credentials flag in sufficient detail http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/114 And the latest ED includes 3 "red block" Issues. -Art Barstow [CORS] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/access-control/ On Apr 7, 2010, at 5:54 AM, ext Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 22:12:33 +0200, Tyler Close > <tyler.close@gmail.com> > wrote: >> I've uploaded a new draft of the Uniform Messaging Policy to: >> >> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/UMP/ >> >> This version adopts the same redirect handling specified by CORS. >> With >> this change I believe there are no outstanding issues with UMP. >> >> The latest version also includes clarifications on the use of HTTP >> caching in uniform requests, as well as the prohibition of client >> authenticated connections for uniform requests. Both of these changes >> reflect clarifications discussed on the list. >> >> I believe the current editor's draft of UMP reflects all feedback >> received on the FPWD and is ready to proceed to Last Call. > > Since this is just a superset of CORS I wonder why we need it. Are > there > any vendors considering dropping support for CORS in favor of just > supporting UMP? > > > -- > Anne van Kesteren > http://annevankesteren.nl/ >
Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2010 14:08:07 UTC