- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 11:08:59 +0200
- To: marcosc@opera.com, "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>
- Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, "Tyler Close" <tyler.close@gmail.com>
On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 00:44:07 +0200, Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com> wrote: > Since then, both CORS and UMP have changed so that UMP is now a subset > of CORS. Since advocacy of CORS includes agreement with this subset, > absent a third position, UMP is the mutually agreed subset of the two > camps. If it is a subset though and nobody intends on implementing it it makes no sense to go forward with it. > Sorry. I meant > > From the feedback we've received on UMP, for those issues that CORS > has in common with UMP, it seems clear that the UMP draft's > documentation of these issues is clearer and more readily understood > than the CORS draft. This is misleading and false: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0433.html -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 9 April 2010 09:09:57 UTC