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

Re: JavaScript Permissions interface in WebApps

From: Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:46:14 +0200
Cc: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com> <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, <dom@w3.org>, <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-Id: <94493457-1CA5-43D7-BD75-523EDF8B2768@robineko.com>
To: Doug Turner <dougt@dougt.org>
Hey Doug,

On Jun 28, 2010, at 23:31 , Doug Turner wrote:
> The unknown case would most likely bring up a UI in Firefox.  The other states talk about if an application is allowed to use a particular feature.  checkPermission could return 'false' stating that the application is not allowed to preform some action... maybe because the user has previously disabled this feature (like opt'd out of gelocation).  Maybe these we previously set by the user, maybe they are just defaults in the UA.... but how they got set is really an implementation detail.

As I've said before, I think that this could be an interesting avenue of work. Out of curiosity: would you be interested in scaring up a draft?

I also wonder if there could be value in adding an options argument to allow one to provide more information about the check. For instance, as you probably recall, there was a discussion not so long ago about quotas for permanent and temporary storage. I wonder if this could not be done through this interface as well with something like checkPermission("permanent-storage", { size: "all-your-teras" }).

With options, it might be possible to provide some privacy terms (perhaps based on our rulesets, or Aza's "essential things, or whatever comes out of next month's workshop). Something like checkPermission("contacts", { retain: "briefly", distribute: false }).

Another thing: if it's just checking for permission, the method can I guess be synchronous. But we could add a third argument being a callback that would make it actually request the permission (or it could be a separate method, as proposed before). In that case, the callback could get an object implementing the interface that it's looking for. This would avoid namespace pollution on navigator (or wherever else most of these APIs end up being stuck) as well as a fair amount of bikeshedding.

I'm not saying all or in fact any of this is a good idea  just sticking it out there :)

--
Robin Berjon
  robineko  hired gun, higher standards
  http://robineko.com/
Received on Tuesday, 29 June 2010 09:46:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:14:10 GMT