- From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:44:04 -0800
- To: Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Adam Barth <abarth@webkit.org> wrote: >> In the current draft of UMP, the client can opt-in to UMP by choosing >> to use the UniformMessaging API, but the server is unable to force >> clients to use UMP because the way the server opts into the protocol >> is by returning the Access-Control-Allow-Origin header. >> Unfortunately, when the server returns the Access-Control-Allow-Origin >> header, the server also opts into the CORS and XDomainRequest >> protocols. The server operator might be reticent to opt into these >> protocols if he or she is worried about ambient authority. >> >> I recommend using a new header, like "Allow-Uniform-Messages: level-1" >> so that servers can opt into UMP specifically. > > I believe all three protocols attach the same semantics to the > "Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *" response header sent in response to a > GET or POST request. Unless you know of a significant difference in > the semantics, breaking compatibility seems unwarranted. Let my phrase my question another way. Suppose the following situation: 1) I'm a server operator and I want to provide a resource to other web sites. 2) I've been reading public-webapps and I'm concerned about the ambient authority in CORS. How can I share my resource with other web sites and enjoy the security benefits of UMP? Adam
Received on Tuesday, 12 January 2010 22:44:56 UTC