- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 12:47:57 +0200
- To: "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>
- Cc: marcosc@opera.com, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, "Tyler Close" <tyler.close@gmail.com>
On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 12:35:49 +0200, Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com> wrote: > If it is a subset, then everyone who intends on implementing either CORS > or UMP intends on implementing UMP. No, that just happens by accident. I don't think anybody implements CORS in the way yet that gives you UMP-type of requests by the way. I also still haven't heard of anyone interested in just implementing UMP. And without implementor interest for that draft it seems our time would be better spent on improving CORS. >> 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? What I mean is that CORS has not had specific review on these issues so it is not really a surprise that UMP is more clear on them. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 9 April 2010 10:48:51 UTC