On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 12:35:49 +0200, Mark S. Miller <erig...@google.com>
wrote:
If it is a subset, then everyone who intends on implementing either CORS
or UMP intends on implementing UMP.
No, that just happens by accident. I don't think anybody implements CORS
in the way yet that gives you UMP-type of requests by the way. I also
still haven't heard of anyone interested in just implementing UMP. And
without implementor interest for that draft it seems our time would be
better spent on improving CORS.
Sorry. I meant
From the feedback we've received on UMP, for those issues that CORS
has in common with UMP, it seems clear that the UMP draft's
documentation of these issues is clearer and more readily understood
than the CORS draft.
This is misleading and false:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0433.html
The text you cite at that link is:
These issues were easier to review in UMP than in CORS because UMP is a
much shorter document than CORS. Also, the issues seemed more core to
what UMP
was trying to accomplish.
Did you mean to cite this as evidence for your case or ours?
What I mean is that CORS has not had specific review on these issues so it
is not really a surprise that UMP is more clear on them.
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
