- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 11:58:21 -0700
- To: Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>
- Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, "ext Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Apr 8, 2010, at 6:42 AM, Tyler Close wrote: > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Arthur Barstow > <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote: >> Re the relationship between CORS and UMP, I believe the last thread >> on that >> subject was the following exchange between Mark and Maceij on >> February 3: >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0462.html >> >> (Neither Mark nor Tyler responded to Maciej's e-mail above.) >> >> We also have the Comparison of CORS and UMP document: >> >> http://www.w3.org/Security/wiki/Comparison_of_CORS_and_UM >> >> If we are going to continue with two separate specs, I think it is >> important >> re expectations from Members and the Public, for there to be >> consensus on >> the relationship(s) between the two models e.g. why do we have two >> models, >> where do the models intersect, what use cases can only be met with >> one of >> the models, why they can't these two models be merged into a single >> model, >> etc. > > I believe the consensus is that UMP is a subset of CORS. I don't know if there is consensus on that, or necessarily even consensus on what "a subset" means. I proposed several possible subset relationships in the email that Art cited above. The thread died at that point, so I don't know if we have consensus that those are the relevant subset relations. I would appreciate a reply from you or Mark, and also from Anne, on whether those are appropriate subset relations. Assuming that my proposed subset relations are agreed upon, I believe at least one of them still does not hold with the current UMP and CORS drafts, my relation (A). Regards, Maciej
Received on Thursday, 8 April 2010 18:58:58 UTC