- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 12:08:14 -0700
- To: Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:48 AM, 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 > think it's clear that UMP has sufficient implementor interest to > proceed along the standardization path. For what it's worth, nobody has or can speak for all of Firefox. Personally I would prefer to see the "UMP model" be specced as part of the CORS spec, mostly to avoid inevitable differences between two specs trying to specify the same thing. And creating an authoring guide specifically for the UMP security model to help authors that want to just use UMP. Specs make for bad developer documentation anyway. / Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2010 19:09:25 UTC