W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: UMP / CORS: Implementor Interest

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 12:05:37 +0200
Message-ID: <4BEBCEF1.8050808@gmx.de>
To: nathan@webr3.org
CC: Devdatta <dev.akhawe@gmail.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
On 12.05.2010 22:39, Nathan wrote:
> Devdatta wrote:
>>> As for the "should CORS exist" discussion, I'll bow out of those until
>>> we're starting to move towards officially adopting a WG decision one
>>> way or another, or genuinely new information is provided which would
>>> affect such a decision (for the record, I don't think I've seen any
>>> new information provided since last fall's TPAC).
>> exactly -- I don't see this thread getting anywhere.
> Vendors & Spec writers,
> What would be really nice is if you gave us server admins, application
> server-side developers and data publishers a say in this.
> Thus I'll propose a new header:
> Allow-XHR = "Allow-XHR" ":" Allow-XHR-v
> Allow-XHR-v = "none" | "negotiate" | "all"
> "none" defines no XHR access
> "negotiate" defines the UA should negotiate CORS or UMP headers (leave
> that up to you guys to decide what's best ;)
> "all" defines that the UA should process the XHR request as a normal
> client HTTP request leaving all information + headers intact.
> ...

 From the side line: I hear that people were worried about having to add 
new response headers just for CORS & friends. Was it ever discussed to 
send these response headers only based on something in the *request*?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 13 May 2010 10:06:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:07 UTC