On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Anne van Kesteren <ann...@opera.com> wrote: > Hopefully it helps calling out attention to this in a separate thread. > > In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0043.html > Maciej states Apple has no interest in implementing UMP from the UMP > specification. (I believe this means that a CORS defined subset that roughly > matches UMP is fine.) They want to retain their CORS support. > > For Opera I can say we are planning on supporting on CORS in due course and > have no plans on implementing UMP from the UMP specification. > > It would be nice if the three other major implementors (i.e. Google, > Mozilla, and Microsoft) also stated their interest for both specifications, > especially including whether removing their current level of CORS support is > considered an option.
As I've said before. I'd be interested in implementing UMP in firefox if we can come up with a reasonable API for using it. I.e. a separate constructor or flag or similar on XHR. This is assuming that UMP is a reasonable subset of CORS. There has been suggestions of changing header names. I'm not a big fan of the current names, but if we're going to fix them, i'd rather see a coherent strategy for all CORS headers than random spot fixes. / Jonas
