Re: UMP / CORS: Implementor Interest

On Apr 21, 2010, at 8:57 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 23:37:54 +0900, Mark S. Miller  
> <erights@google.com> wrote:
>> 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.

I agree that "Anonymous" or "Anon" is more clear as to the purpose  
than "Uniform". I understand why UMP uses that term but I don't think  
it will be obvious to authors reading code.

Regards,
Maciej