On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:25:43 +0100, Alex Russell
wrote:
Feels like URL vs. URI to me, which for the 80% case is simply bike-
shedding.
To be honest, I never quite understood the difference between those two.
The difference between a domain and an origin however, is very clear:
domain
Feels like URL vs. URI to me, which for the 80% case is simply bike-
shedding. I appreciate that there is a question of specificity and
that your clarification is more correct...but is that a good enough
reason to do it?
Regards
On Jan 14, 2009, at 11:14 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On W
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:52:50 +0100, Alex Russell
wrote:
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".
Domain does not capture significan
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".
Domain does not capture significance of the scheme and port, while
Origin does. I'm updatin
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:28:49 +0100, Arthur Barstow
wrote:
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
Processing Instruction 1.0
Enabling Read Access for Web R
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
Being external to it all, i.e. just reading the mailing-list with the
spec-title mentioned just about everytime, it clearly seems like a
good move to me: that specs starts to taste interesting whereas,
before, it seemed to be unrelated to my tasks!
;-)
paul
Le 13-janv.-09 à 17:50, Anne
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
> On 13 Jan 2009, at 09:58, Doug Schepers wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
On 13 Jan 2009, at 09:58, Doug Schepers wrote:
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
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009, 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 [...]
If I ever indicated a reluctance to rename the spec, I retract it.
Hi, Anne-
Anne van Kesteren wrote (on 1/13/09 11:50 AM):
>
> 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
>
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 priva
12 matches
Mail list logo
