Re: UMP / CORS: Implementor Interest

On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 23:50:40 +0900, Mark S. Miller <>  
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Anne van Kesteren  
> <>wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 01:27:10 +0900, Tyler Close <>
>> 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

Received on Wednesday, 21 April 2010 16:04:25 UTC