Feels like URL vs. URI to me, which for the 80% case is simply bike-
shedding. I appreciate that there is a question of specificity and
that your clarification is more correct...but is that a good enough
reason to do it?
Regards
On Jan 14, 2009, at 11:14 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:52:50 +0100, Alex Russell
<a...@dojotoolkit.org> wrote:
I do agree the title is important and support either of the
proposed new titles (preference goes with "Resource"). One
question I have here is whether "Domain" would be more accurate
than "Origin".
Domain does not capture significance of the scheme and port, while
Origin does. I'm updating the draft to use terminology a bit more
consistent now so it should become less confusing. (E.g. I'm
removing cross-site in favor of cross-origin as the latter has a
clearly defined meaning and the former is just used on blogs.)
This seems both condescending and useless. Nearly everyone knows
what "cross domain" and "same domain policy" mean, whereas "cross
origin" is just what language lawyers say to make regular web
developers feel bad (AFICT).
Please end the madness.
Well, both are important (and different, origin is a superset), no?
E.g. document.domain clearly represents a domain, where as the
MessageEvent interface has an origin attribute that gives back an
origin. This very draft defines two headers with the name origin in
them. It seems to me that developers will quickly pick up the
difference.
