- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 08:38:54 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > Hopefully it helps calling out attention to this in a separate thread. > > In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0043.html > Maciej states Apple has no interest in implementing UMP from the UMP > specification. (I believe this means that a CORS defined subset that roughly > matches UMP is fine.) They want to retain their CORS support. > > For Opera I can say we are planning on supporting on CORS in due course and > have no plans on implementing UMP from the UMP specification. > > It would be nice if the three other major implementors (i.e. Google, > Mozilla, and Microsoft) also stated their interest for both specifications, > especially including whether removing their current level of CORS support is > considered an option. As I've said before. I'd be interested in implementing UMP in firefox if we can come up with a reasonable API for using it. I.e. a separate constructor or flag or similar on XHR. This is assuming that UMP is a reasonable subset of CORS. There has been suggestions of changing header names. I'm not a big fan of the current names, but if we're going to fix them, i'd rather see a coherent strategy for all CORS headers than random spot fixes. / Jonas
Received on Monday, 19 April 2010 15:39:48 UTC