Re: [webappsec + webapps] CORS to PR plans

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/
>