Re: CfC: to publish First Public Working Draft of Uniform Messaging Policy spec; deadline January 19
On Jan 13, 2010, at 00:29 , Arthur Barstow wrote: This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public Working Draft (FPWD) of the Uniform Messaging Policy (UMP) spec, latest Editor's Draft at: http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/UMP/ This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's decision to request advancement. +1 for publication. The only thing I don't like is the name, it's heavily politically charged in French. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Re: CfC: to publish First Public Working Draft of Uniform Messaging Policy spec; deadline January 19
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public Working Draft (FPWD) of the Uniform Messaging Policy (UMP) spec, latest Editor's Draft at: http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/UMP/ This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's decision to request advancement. By publishing this FPWD, the group sends a signal to the community to begin reviewing the document. The FPWD reflects where the group is on this spec at the time of publication; it does not necessarily mean there is consensus on the spec's contents. As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for comments is January 19. +1 for publication. -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Re: CfC: to publish First Public Working Draft of Uniform Messaging Policy spec; deadline January 19
Support. On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public Working Draft (FPWD) of the Uniform Messaging Policy (UMP) spec, latest Editor's Draft at: http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/UMP/ This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's decision to request advancement. By publishing this FPWD, the group sends a signal to the community to begin reviewing the document. The FPWD reflects where the group is on this spec at the time of publication; it does not necessarily mean there is consensus on the spec's contents. As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for comments is January 19. -Art Barstow Begin forwarded message: From: ext Tyler Close tyler.cl...@gmail.com Date: January 7, 2010 8:21:10 PM EST To: public-webapps public-webapps@w3.org Subject: [UMP] A declarative version of Uniform Messaging Policy Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/5691356f1001071721k3ca16400qe5a2f4d6d966c...@mail.gmail.com I've updated the UMP spec to use a declarative style and moved the algorithmic specification to a non-normative appendix. Hopefully this organization will appeal to fans of either style. See: http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/UMP/ I'm hoping to move UMP forward to FPWD as soon as possible. Please let me know if there is anything I need to do to expedite this process. Thanks, --Tyler
Re: CfC: to publish First Public Working Draft of Uniform Messaging Policy spec; deadline January 19
I support this. For the record: I have admittedly not been following the recent discussions, but some of it has worried me a bit. I liked how UMP was originally a subset of CORS, in that it gave some amount of compatibility between the two models. In particular the ability for a UMP client to talk to a CORS server seems like a win for both specs. I also believe it makes switching between the two models slightly easier, which again I think is a win for all involved parties. If that is no longer the case, I hope that we'll end up back there. In any case, whatever the state is I support the publication of this FPWD. And please do keep technical discussions in the existing threads (and new ones of course). I just wanted to raise some technical concerns so that no one misunderstood what my support for the FPWD meant. / Jonas On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public Working Draft (FPWD) of the Uniform Messaging Policy (UMP) spec, latest Editor's Draft at: http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/UMP/ This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's decision to request advancement. By publishing this FPWD, the group sends a signal to the community to begin reviewing the document. The FPWD reflects where the group is on this spec at the time of publication; it does not necessarily mean there is consensus on the spec's contents. As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for comments is January 19. -Art Barstow Begin forwarded message: From: ext Tyler Close tyler.cl...@gmail.com Date: January 7, 2010 8:21:10 PM EST To: public-webapps public-webapps@w3.org Subject: [UMP] A declarative version of Uniform Messaging Policy Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/5691356f1001071721k3ca16400qe5a2f4d6d966c...@mail.gmail.com I've updated the UMP spec to use a declarative style and moved the algorithmic specification to a non-normative appendix. Hopefully this organization will appeal to fans of either style. See: http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/UMP/ I'm hoping to move UMP forward to FPWD as soon as possible. Please let me know if there is anything I need to do to expedite this process. Thanks, --Tyler
Re: CfC: to publish First Public Working Draft of Uniform Messaging Policy spec; deadline January 19
Support. On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.comwrote: This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public Working Draft (FPWD) of the Uniform Messaging Policy (UMP) spec, latest Editor's Draft at: http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/UMP/ This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's decision to request advancement. By publishing this FPWD, the group sends a signal to the community to begin reviewing the document. The FPWD reflects where the group is on this spec at the time of publication; it does not necessarily mean there is consensus on the spec's contents. As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for comments is January 19. -Art Barstow Begin forwarded message: From: ext Tyler Close tyler.cl...@gmail.com Date: January 7, 2010 8:21:10 PM EST To: public-webapps public-webapps@w3.org Subject: [UMP] A declarative version of Uniform Messaging Policy Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/ 5691356f1001071721k3ca16400qe5a2f4d6d966c...@mail.gmail.com I've updated the UMP spec to use a declarative style and moved the algorithmic specification to a non-normative appendix. Hopefully this organization will appeal to fans of either style. See: http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/UMP/ I'm hoping to move UMP forward to FPWD as soon as possible. Please let me know if there is anything I need to do to expedite this process. Thanks, --Tyler -- Cheers, --MarkM
Re: CfC: to publish First Public Working Draft of Uniform Messaging Policy spec; deadline January 19
support On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public Working Draft (FPWD) of the Uniform Messaging Policy (UMP) spec, latest Editor's Draft at: http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/UMP/ This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's decision to request advancement. By publishing this FPWD, the group sends a signal to the community to begin reviewing the document. The FPWD reflects where the group is on this spec at the time of publication; it does not necessarily mean there is consensus on the spec's contents. As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for comments is January 19. -Art Barstow Begin forwarded message: From: ext Tyler Close tyler.cl...@gmail.com Date: January 7, 2010 8:21:10 PM EST To: public-webapps public-webapps@w3.org Subject: [UMP] A declarative version of Uniform Messaging Policy Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/5691356f1001071721k3ca16400qe5a2f4d6d966c...@mail.gmail.com I've updated the UMP spec to use a declarative style and moved the algorithmic specification to a non-normative appendix. Hopefully this organization will appeal to fans of either style. See: http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/UMP/ I'm hoping to move UMP forward to FPWD as soon as possible. Please let me know if there is anything I need to do to expedite this process. Thanks, --Tyler -- Waterken News: Capability security on the Web http://waterken.sourceforge.net/recent.html
Re: CfC: to publish First Public Working Draft of Uniform Messaging Policy spec; deadline January 19
Hi Jonas, I too like the subset relationship between UMP and CORS and hope to retain it. AFAIK, the only issue here is whether or not the user-agent can follow a non-uniform redirect. There are two ways to resolve this: UMP forbids following or CORS enables following. Is there any chance of the latter? --Tyler On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: I support this. For the record: I have admittedly not been following the recent discussions, but some of it has worried me a bit. I liked how UMP was originally a subset of CORS, in that it gave some amount of compatibility between the two models. In particular the ability for a UMP client to talk to a CORS server seems like a win for both specs. I also believe it makes switching between the two models slightly easier, which again I think is a win for all involved parties. If that is no longer the case, I hope that we'll end up back there. In any case, whatever the state is I support the publication of this FPWD. And please do keep technical discussions in the existing threads (and new ones of course). I just wanted to raise some technical concerns so that no one misunderstood what my support for the FPWD meant. / Jonas On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public Working Draft (FPWD) of the Uniform Messaging Policy (UMP) spec, latest Editor's Draft at: http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/UMP/ This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's decision to request advancement. By publishing this FPWD, the group sends a signal to the community to begin reviewing the document. The FPWD reflects where the group is on this spec at the time of publication; it does not necessarily mean there is consensus on the spec's contents. As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for comments is January 19. -Art Barstow Begin forwarded message: From: ext Tyler Close tyler.cl...@gmail.com Date: January 7, 2010 8:21:10 PM EST To: public-webapps public-webapps@w3.org Subject: [UMP] A declarative version of Uniform Messaging Policy Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/5691356f1001071721k3ca16400qe5a2f4d6d966c...@mail.gmail.com I've updated the UMP spec to use a declarative style and moved the algorithmic specification to a non-normative appendix. Hopefully this organization will appeal to fans of either style. See: http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/UMP/ I'm hoping to move UMP forward to FPWD as soon as possible. Please let me know if there is anything I need to do to expedite this process. Thanks, --Tyler -- Waterken News: Capability security on the Web http://waterken.sourceforge.net/recent.html
Re: CfC: to publish First Public Working Draft of Uniform Messaging Policy spec; deadline January 19
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Tyler Close tyler.cl...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Jonas, I too like the subset relationship between UMP and CORS and hope to retain it. AFAIK, the only issue here is whether or not the user-agent can follow a non-uniform redirect. There are two ways to resolve this: UMP forbids following or CORS enables following. Is there any chance of the latter? Like I said, I'd prefer to keep the technical discussions separate from this thread as I don't consider the technical issues a blocker for publishing a FPWD. I hope that is ok. / Jonas
