Re: ACTION-291: Next steps on ACTION-279

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 05:05:18 +0200, <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> I am sorry for any misunderstanding that has arisen here.  What may not
> have been clear is that in this particular area, I did not actually have
> firsthand knowledge of the facts, and my note (addressed to Henry and cc:
> to www-tag) was intended primarily to ask him to follow up as  
> appropriate.

No problem, I was just wondering what was going on :-)


> Given that this confusion has arisen, I did check with some of the TAG
> members who have been more directly involved, including Henry.  They
> concur with you that there was followup to your original posting, but  
> they remain concerned that those responses didn't seem (to us, anyway) to
> include the sort of point-by-point clarification that would directly
> resolve the concerns raised.  In particular, there are questions as to  
> how the various security-related issues which commentators had raised with
> respect to CORS had in fact been addressed.  Do you in fact have a
> tabulation of issues raised and their resolution?  (We would expect that
> something of this sort would in any case be needed when you come to the
> transition to Candidate Recommendation from Last Call.)

At this point I can only point back to the mailing list archives. Some issues have been tracked in the issue tracker as well, but I'm not sure which issues you are referring to here.

When we're going to Last Call we'll make sure to make a Disposition of Comments of course, but we are not there yet.


> Also, although we understand that at one level announcements of
> implementations in shipping or soon-to-ship browser releases is an
> encouraging endorsement, and while avoiding unnecessary disruption to  
> such implementations is of great value, such early adopter experimentation
> should not prevent careful evaluation and development of standards that
> will best meet the long term needs of the community.

Agreed.


> So, while we appreciate and are sensitive to the concerns of those who implement  
> early, we want also to be sure that the design proposed is indeed appropriate  
> for the final Recommendation.

Well, at the moment it is still missing a model appropriate for redirects, but for the rest of the model the WG should be perfectly capable of giving answers to questions. (I think part of the problem may have been that the first point in your email did not go into sufficient detail for us to provide a satisfactory answer.)


> Again, I apologize for any confusion that may have been caused by my
> original note.

No problem, thanks for the follow-up.

Kind regards,


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/

Received on Tuesday, 28 July 2009 07:25:38 UTC