Re: UMP / CORS: Implementor Interest

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 May 2010 19:48:57 +0200, Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> >> Firefox, Chrome and Caja have now all declared an interest in
> >> implementing UMP. Opera and Safari have both declared an interest in
> >> implementing the functionality defined in UMP under the name CORS. I
>

I would put Chrome in the same camp as Opera and Safari based off the
chromium-dev thread. Although, I think the distinction might lie in the
misunderstanding below.


> >> In the discussion on chromium-dev, Adam Barth wrote:
> >>
> >> """
> >> Putting these together, it looks like we want a separate UMP
> >> specification for web developers and a combined CORS+UMP specification
> >> for user agent implementors.  Consequently, I think it makes sense for
> >> the working group to publish UMP separately from CORS but have all the
> >> user agent conformance requirements in the combined CORS+UMP document.
> >> """
>
<snip>

> >> I think this is a satisfactory compromise and conclusion to the
> >> current debate. Anne, are you willing to adopt this strategy? If so, I
> >> think there needs to be a normative statement in the CORS spec that
> >> identifies the algorithms and corresponding inputs that implement UMP.
> >
> > I don't understand. As far as I can tell Adam suggests making UMP an
> > authoring guide.
>
> I read Adam as saying the UMP specification should be published. The
> words "authoring guide" don't appear. I believe his reference to a
> benefit for web developers refers to an opinion expressed earlier in
> the thread that the UMP specification is more easily understood by web
> developers.
>

What is the difference between an "authoring guide" and a "specification for
web developers"? The key point of making this distinction is that
implementors should be able to look solely at the combined spec.

Ojan