Re: UMP / CORS: Implementor Interest

On Apr 21, 2010, at 6:23 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <>  
> wrote:
> I agree that "Anonymous" or "Anon" is more clear as to the purpose  
> than "Uniform".
> In the same say this email is anonymous. Sure, I say it is from  
> MarkM, but my browser doesn't add any identifying info that you can  
> see. Even if I included MarkM's PGP signature, by your criteria, it  
> would still be anonymous.

Your mail client automatically adds identifying info, as do any mail  
relays in the delivery path. If that were not the case, I would think  
it's fair to say the message is sent anonymously based on the envelope  
being anynymous. That's so even if the message contents include a  
claim or proof of your identity.

> I understand why UMP uses that term but I don't think it will be  
> obvious to authors reading code.
> "XML" is also a misnomer. And "Http" is confusing as well, since  
> these requests can (and should) generally be carried over https. At  
> least we agree on "Request" ;).

I agree, but (a) that ship has sailed; and (b) dropping those from the  
name only in the anonymous/uniform/whatever version would probably be  
more confusing than helpful, at least if the API ends up being roughly  
similar. XMLHttpRequest has brand value, and it's worth building on  
author awareness even if the X and the H are more historical than  
meaningful at this point.


Received on Thursday, 22 April 2010 01:45:55 UTC