W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2008

RE: Access Control (was: Re: Meeting record for TAG Telcon: 10th Jan 2008)

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 08:13:04 -0800
Message-ID: <BEBB9CBE66B372469E93FFDE3EDC493E01453691@repbex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>


You missed the requirements document that I created and the WG has been
discussing, which also contains the use cases that the chair asked to be
added into the WG's use case documentation.  



> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] 
> On Behalf Of Anne van Kesteren
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 7:39 AM
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Access Control (was: Re: Meeting record for TAG 
> Telcon: 10th Jan 2008)
> Hi,
> Being the editor of the discussed Access Control for 
> Cross-site Requests specification I thought I'd reply to a 
> few of the points made. Also, the latest draft, design 
> decision FAQ, and use cases can be found at the following locations:
>   * http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/access-control/
>   * http://annevankesteren.nl/temp/access-control-faq
>   * http://annevankesteren.nl/temp/access-control-use-cases

> >    DO: while much of this is process/editorial, the choice 
> of GET [as
> >    opposed to OPTIONs or HEAD] is technical and architectural
> We're using OPTIONS now as it turned out that server support 
> is better than it was a year ago when we started this work. 
> I'm not sure if Firefox is already updated to reflect this.

I think there's been movement towards OPTIONS, but I don't believe that
the WG had formally agreed to that..

Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2008 16:16:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:19 UTC