W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: [UMP] Request for Last Call

From: Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 03:35:49 -0700
Message-ID: <n2x4d2fac901004090335t6e2c1f0ey38f2745ae34bc35d@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: marcosc@opera.com, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 2:08 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:

> 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.

If it is a subset, then everyone who intends on implementing either CORS or
UMP intends on implementing UMP.

>  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
The text you cite at that link is:

These issues were easier to review in UMP than in CORS because UMP is a much
shorter document than CORS. Also, the issues seemed more core to what UMP
was trying to accomplish.

Did you mean to cite this as evidence for your case or ours?

> --
> Anne van Kesteren
> http://annevankesteren.nl/

Received on Friday, 9 April 2010 10:36:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:06 UTC