On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 23:50:40 +0900, Mark S. Miller <erig...@google.com>
wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Anne van Kesteren
<ann...@opera.com>wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 01:27:10 +0900, Tyler Close <tyler.cl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
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?
Because I've yet to receive detailed feedback / proposals on CORS on
what needs changing.
How are "Why can't it be made exactly like UMP?" and "Ideally, I'd like
UMP to be folded into CORS by reference rather than by value, ..." not a
detailed proposal? It's not a long proposal, because the proposal is
simple enough to be clear and short.
Implementors are interested in an integrated solution (i.e. by value). I
personally think it would also be of significantly less overhead and make
it much more clear where the problems are.
In another thread Maciej asked you whether you would like to file the
appropriate bugs and the he would do so if you did not get around to
it. I have not seen much since.
As I pointed out we were already on the way to fixing this; I'm not sure
why you want to revisit that discussion yet again.
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
