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

Re: UMP / CORS: Implementor Interest

From: Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 09:27:10 -0700
Message-ID: <h2l5691356f1004200927q72fe2c2ftf060fbfe9a941d14@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:38:54 +0900, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>> 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.
> Have you looked at the proposal I put in XHR2? It sets certain flags in CORS
> that make it more or less the same as UMP.

Why can't it be made exactly like UMP? All of the requirements in UMP
have been discussed at length and in great detail on this list by some
highly qualified people. The current UMP spec reflects all of that
discussion. By your own admission, the CORS spec has not received the
same level of review for these features. Why hasn't CORS adopted the
UMP solution?


"Waterken News: Capability security on the Web"
Received on Tuesday, 20 April 2010 16:27:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:07 UTC