On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Yeah, me too. That's what I meant by my comment above. Two documents for two audiences, each tailored to best suit its audience. Adam
