Re: CfC: to publish First Public Working Draft of Uniform Messaging Policy spec; deadline January 19

Hi Jonas,

I too like the subset relationship between UMP and CORS and hope to
retain it. AFAIK, the only issue here is whether or not the user-agent
can follow a non-uniform redirect. There are two ways to resolve this:
UMP forbids following or CORS enables following. Is there any chance
of the latter?

--Tyler

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> I support this.
>
> For the record: I have admittedly not been following the recent
> discussions, but some of it has worried me a bit. I liked how UMP was
> originally a subset of CORS, in that it gave some amount of
> compatibility between the two models. In particular the ability for a
> UMP client to talk to a CORS server seems like a win for both specs. I
> also believe it makes switching between the two models slightly
> easier, which again I think is a win for all involved parties.
>
> If that is no longer the case, I hope that we'll end up back there.
>
> In any case, whatever the state is I support the publication of this
> FPWD. And please do keep technical discussions in the existing threads
> (and new ones of course). I just wanted to raise some technical
> concerns so that no one misunderstood what my support for the FPWD
> meant.
>
> / Jonas
>
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:
>> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public Working Draft
>> (FPWD) of the Uniform Messaging Policy (UMP) spec, latest Editor's Draft at:
>>
>>  http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/UMP/
>>
>> This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to "record the group's decision
>> to request advancement".
>>
>> By publishing this FPWD, the group sends a signal to the community to begin
>> reviewing the document. The FPWD reflects where the group is on this spec at
>> the time of publication; it does not necessarily mean there is consensus on
>> the spec's contents.
>>
>> As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and
>> silence will be assumed to be assent.
>>
>> The deadline for comments is January 19.
>>
>> -Art Barstow
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> From: ext Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>
>>> Date: January 7, 2010 8:21:10 PM EST
>>> To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
>>> Subject: [UMP] A declarative version of "Uniform Messaging Policy"
>>> Archived-At:
>>> <http://www.w3.org/mid/5691356f1001071721k3ca16400qe5a2f4d6d966ca15@mail.gmail.com>
>>>
>>> I've updated the UMP spec to use a declarative style and moved the
>>> algorithmic specification to a non-normative appendix. Hopefully this
>>> organization will appeal to fans of either style. See:
>>>
>>> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/UMP/
>>>
>>> I'm hoping to move UMP forward to FPWD as soon as possible. Please let
>>> me know if there is anything I need to do to expedite this process.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> --Tyler
>>
>>
>>
>
>



-- 
"Waterken News: Capability security on the Web"
http://waterken.sourceforge.net/recent.html

Received on Wednesday, 13 January 2010 00:38:00 UTC