On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Dirk Pranke <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Tyler Close <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Ojan Vafai <[email protected]> wrote: >>> What is the difference between an "authoring guide" and a "specification for >>> web developers"? >> >> The difference is whether or not the normative statements in UMP >> actually are normative for a CORS implementation. This comes down to >> whether or not a developer reading UMP can trust what it says, or must >> he also read the CORS spec. >> >>> The key point of making this distinction is that >>> implementors should be able to look solely at the combined spec. >> >> No, the key point is to relieve developers of the burden of reading >> and understanding CORS. The CORS spec takes on the burden of restating >> UMP in its own algorithmic way so that an implementor can read only >> CORS. > > If figuring out how to have two specs is too much hassle, you could > probably get 90%+ of what people are looking for by putting all of the > normative stuff in the CORS spec and writing an informational note > describing UMP that only discusses the subset of CORS needed for UMP.
That is exactly what I propose. I'd also call the informational UMP note developer documentation, and make it easier to read for developers than what a spec could ever be. But that's less important if people feel otherwise. / Jonas
