On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 02:39:31 +0900, Tyler Close <tyler.cl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Anne van Kesteren <ann...@opera.com>
wrote:
Because I've yet to receive detailed feedback / proposals on CORS on
what needs changing. 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.
The email you refer to listed several specific problems with CORS. As
you've noted, Maciej agreed these were problems. Now you're telling us
that as editor for the WG you have decided to ignore this detailed
feedback because it is not yet filed as official Issues against CORS.
I'm not planning on ignoring anything. Why would I bring it up in the
first place if I was?
Instead, you are choosing to ignore UMP and press ahead trying to gain
implementer support for the mechanism defined in CORS, even though you
know there are agreed problems with it.
I've already stated I'm willing to fix those problems.
See also:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0106.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0107.html
A different approach, would be to recognize the value of all the work
and analysis the WG has put into UMP and so explore how CORS could
reference and leverage this work. I am happy to collaborate with you
on this task if you'd like to make the attempt.
I don't think making CORS depend on UMP makes sense.
See also:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0245.html
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
