- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 00:01:15 +0200
- To: "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>
Hi Mark, On Wednesday, April 7, 2010, Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> 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 [subset] of CORS I wonder why we need it. > > Because it is the subset of CORS on which we have consensus. > with no disrespect, who is "we" in this context? How was consensus gathered and where is the WGs resolution recorded showing endorsement from the membership of this WG. I only ask because I get the sense there is a lot of controversy around this draft proposal (remembering TPAC also). > Also, the feedback we've received on UMP show that UMP documents this > subset more understandably than the CORS spec does. > sorry, I don't really understand the sentence above. Can you please rephrase? >> Are there any >> vendors considering dropping support for CORS in favor of just supporting >> UMP? This question is quite relevant and I think deserves an answer. It gives the WG a real idea about concensus if there is buy-in to implement; though for comercial reasons some may not want to make support public. FWIW, I'm quite keen to review the draft (as I personally quite liked the earlier draft and was even about to start reviewing this morning) but am reluctant to do so because I'm not getting a sense of significant support. >> -- >> Anne van Kesteren >> http://annevankesteren.nl/ >> >> > > > > -- > Cheers, > --MarkM > > -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2010 22:01:43 UTC