- From: Brad Hill <hillbrad@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 11:57:01 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAEeYn8jUt_cW2otGGR53p4C0qE=jZ7-8ZbyapGUU5wVcpSNgzg@mail.gmail.com>
Anne, Sorry for the delayed reply. If you look at the diff-marked version, you'll see the links to WHATWG Fetch that I updated. As far as the full range of success status codes, if you look at Boris Zbarsky's comments in the thread linked, it seems that Firefox was only planning to implement 204. I will consider the CfC suspended until I get some tests running to determine the actual implementation status in various browsers, and we can expand the list to whatever will interop. -Brad On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Brad Hill <hillbrad@gmail.com> wrote: > > 1. Changed "Fetch" references. The CR document referenced the WHATWG > Fetch > > spec in a number of places. This was problematic due to the maturity / > > stability requirements of the W3C for document advancement, and I feel > also > > inappropriate, as the current Fetch spec positions itself as a successor > to > > CORS, not a reference in terms of which CORS is defined. > > Pretty sure CORS didn't reference the Fetch Standard. Given that the > Fetch Standard is written after I wrote CORS, that would be somewhat > improbable. > > > > 8. In response to thread beginning at: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webappsec/2013Feb/0078.html, > > added 204 as a valid code equivalent to 200 for the CORS algorithm. > > I think implementations are moving towards allowing the whole 200-299 > range. (Fetch Standard codifies that, at least.) > > > -- > http://annevankesteren.nl/ >
Received on Monday, 12 August 2013 18:57:30 UTC