- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 01:03:25 +0900
- To: "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>
- Cc: "Tyler Close" <tyler.close@gmail.com>, "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 23:50:40 +0900, Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Anne van Kesteren > <annevk@opera.com>wrote: >> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 01:27:10 +0900, Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> 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? >> >> Because I've yet to receive detailed feedback / proposals on CORS on >> what needs changing. > > How are "Why can't it be made exactly like UMP?" and "Ideally, I'd like > UMP to be folded into CORS by reference rather than by value, ..." not a > detailed proposal? It's not a long proposal, because the proposal is > simple enough to be clear and short. Implementors are interested in an integrated solution (i.e. by value). I personally think it would also be of significantly less overhead and make it much more clear where the problems are. >> In another thread Maciej asked you whether you would like to file the >> appropriate bugs and the he would do so if you did not get around to >> it. I have not seen much since. As I pointed out we were already on the way to fixing this; I'm not sure why you want to revisit that discussion yet again. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 21 April 2010 16:04:25 UTC