- From: Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 10:39:31 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
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. 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. The email you refer to listed several specific problems with CORS. As you've noted, Maciej agreed these were problems. Now you're telling us that as editor for the WG you have decided to ignore this detailed feedback because it is not yet filed as official Issues against CORS. Instead, you are choosing to ignore UMP and press ahead trying to gain implementer support for the mechanism defined in CORS, even though you know there are agreed problems with it. A different approach, would be to recognize the value of all the work and analysis the WG has put into UMP and so explore how CORS could reference and leverage this work. I am happy to collaborate with you on this task if you'd like to make the attempt. --Tyler -- "Waterken News: Capability security on the Web" http://waterken.sourceforge.net/recent.html
Received on Wednesday, 21 April 2010 17:40:05 UTC