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

Re: UMP / CORS: Implementor Interest

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 00:57:12 +0900
To: "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>
Cc: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.vbirxmnn64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 23:37:54 +0900, Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com>  
> I dislike "AnonXMLHttpRequest" because the request is not necessarily
> anonymous. For example, the requestor may very well place identifying  
> info
> in the body '{"from": "john@example.com", ...}'.
> I like constructor name already shown at <
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/UMP/#ump-api-name>: "UniformRequest".

Since you still work with the XMLHttpRequest object I think it should be  
in the name of the constructor as well. "Uniform" doesn't tell you much  
about what it is doing. "Anon" is much clearer in that sense. The user  
agent will keep the request anonymous. That the author can put identifying  
information on top of that is up to the author.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Wednesday, 21 April 2010 15:58:46 UTC

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