Re: UMP / CORS: Implementor Interest

On May 11, 2010, at 1:57 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:

> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Dirk Pranke <>  
> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Tyler Close  
>> <> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Ojan Vafai <>  
>>> 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.
> That is exactly what I propose. I'd also call the informational UMP
> note developer documentation, and make it easier to read for
> developers than what a spec could ever be. But that's less important
> if people feel otherwise.

The approach suggested by Dirk and Jonas seems sensible to me.


Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2010 22:17:31 UTC