- From: Dirk Pranke <dpranke@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 13:34:33 -0700
- To: Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>
- Cc: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>, 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 12:01 PM, Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote: >> What is the difference between an "authoring guide" and a "specification for >> web developers"? > > The difference is whether or not the normative statements in UMP > actually are normative for a CORS implementation. This comes down to > whether or not a developer reading UMP can trust what it says, or must > he also read the CORS spec. > >> The key point of making this distinction is that >> implementors should be able to look solely at the combined spec. > > No, the key point is to relieve developers of the burden of reading > and understanding CORS. The CORS spec takes on the burden of restating > UMP in its own algorithmic way so that an implementor can read only > CORS. If figuring out how to have two specs is too much hassle, you could probably get 90%+ of what people are looking for by putting all of the normative stuff in the CORS spec and writing an informational note describing UMP that only discusses the subset of CORS needed for UMP. User agent implementors will have to read the CORS spec regardless of whether or not UMP is in it or a different spec, so creating two specs doesn't help much. And, as others have noted, service developers and web authors don't really tend to need to read the specs, so an article would probably be sufficient. -- Dirk
Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2010 20:35:11 UTC