On Apr 20, 2010, at 9:27 AM, Tyler Close wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Anne van Kesteren
<ann...@opera.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:38:54 +0900, Jonas Sicking
<jo...@sicking.cc> wrote:
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.
Have you looked at the proposal I put in XHR2? It sets certain
flags in CORS
that make it more or less the same as UMP.
Why can't it be made exactly like UMP? All of the requirements in UMP
have been discussed at length and in great detail on this list by some
highly qualified people. The current UMP spec reflects all of that
discussion. By your own admission, the CORS spec has not received the
same level of review for these features. Why hasn't CORS adopted the
UMP solution?
It should be made exactly like UMP, either by changing CORS, or
changing UMP, or some combination of the two. A list of differences
between UMP and CORS "anonymous mode" would be most helpful.
Regards,
Maciej