Hi,
On Jan 13, 2009, at 11:50 AM, ext Anne van Kesteren wrote:
I know some people (e.g. Ian) don't like the idea, but it seems the
name "Access Control for Cross-Site Requests" confuses people,
especially the "Access Control" part:
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/12/10-minutes#item03
'TBL: Calling it Access Control" is misleading. It's about privacy.'
Henri Sivonen suggested "Cross-Origin Data Sharing" on IRC the
other day:
http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20090112#l-139
Since it can be about more than just data, e.g. images, "Cross-
Origin Resource Sharing" might be more appropriate. Keeping the
header names the same seems fine, they're just opague strings, but
at least making it more clear what the specification is about might
help people.
It's been over a year since we last changed the name of this spec so
I guess it's about time we renamed it again :-):
[[
Authorizing Read Access to XML Content Using the <?access-control?>
Processing Instruction 1.0
Enabling Read Access for Web Resources
Access Control for Cross-site Requests
]]
I do agree the title is important and support either of the proposed
new titles (preference goes with "Resource"). One question I have
here is whether "Domain" would be more accurate than "Origin".
The only concern I have is whether a name change would be problematic
to anyone that may have implemented the latest Draft. OTOH, a WD is
always at risk of being substantially changed.
-Regards, Art Barstow
