On May 11, 2010, at 1:57 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
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.
The approach suggested by Dirk and Jonas seems sensible to me.
Regards,
Maciej
