I believe all three protocols attach the same semantics to the "Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *" response header sent in response to a GET or POST request. Unless you know of a significant difference in the semantics, breaking compatibility seems unwarranted.
--Tyler On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Adam Barth <[email protected]> wrote: > In the current draft of UMP, the client can opt-in to UMP by choosing > to use the UniformMessaging API, but the server is unable to force > clients to use UMP because the way the server opts into the protocol > is by returning the Access-Control-Allow-Origin header. > Unfortunately, when the server returns the Access-Control-Allow-Origin > header, the server also opts into the CORS and XDomainRequest > protocols. The server operator might be reticent to opt into these > protocols if he or she is worried about ambient authority. > > I recommend using a new header, like "Allow-Uniform-Messages: level-1" > so that servers can opt into UMP specifically. > > Adam > -- "Waterken News: Capability security on the Web" http://waterken.sourceforge.net/recent.html
