W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > July 2010

Re: JavaScript Permissions interface in WebApps

From: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 20:42:37 +0200
To: <andreip@google.com>
CC: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, <jmorris@cdt.org>, <dougt@dougt.org>, <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C7FC5035-AF34-4CA7-8670-2DBF7D7B8A81@nokia.com>
Andrei

Thanks, looking at it again.

So section 4.1 has the key points. Cases include implicit/explicit user consent, or some rule mechansm, or implicit trust. This is not inconsistent with DAP directions.  It does not specify any mechanisms.

I'm taking a look at the test cases, http://dev.w3.org/geo/api/test-suite/#ua-tests

Do you have any comment on the status of the testing and plans going forward?

Thanks

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Jul 2, 2010, at 2:23 PM, ext Andrei Popescu wrote:

> Hi Frederick,
> 
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 6:54 PM,  <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com> wrote:
>> Andrei
>> 
>>> But the Geolocation WG did not reject the idea of taking action to protect privacy. I think it is regrettable to make such a statement.
>> 
>> Was the Geolocation WG able to take any action to help resolve the privacy concerns?
> 
> Our action was to include a normative section in the spec (Security
> and privacy considerations) that describes what steps conforming User
> Agents and applications must take in order to protect privacy.
> FYI, this was tracked in http://www.w3.org/2008/geolocation/track/issues/5
> 
>> 
>> If so, what can the DAP WG learn from this work?
>> 
> 
> The Geolocation WG's responses to the Last Call comments summarize our
> conclusions and also contain plenty of references to the extensive
> discussions we had on this topic:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2009Oct/0009.html
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Andrei
Received on Friday, 2 July 2010 18:43:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:53:45 UTC