W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > November 2015

Re: Formalizing our permissions model using the Permissions API

From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 08:27:23 +0000
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B373FBC21@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
On 30/11/15 08:54, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> Den 30. nov. 2015 08:48, skrev Stefan Håkansson LK:
>> This looks quite good IMO.
>>
>> But, for microphone and camera permissions, would it not make sense to
>> have a list of devideIds? For the situation where the UA has stored
>> permissions (for this origin) to use camera A and B but not C?
>>
>> (Slightly different from all-cameras).
>
> My reading of the permissions model is that if a permission is qualified
> by an ID, each different ID value turns the permisison into a different
> permission.

I think you are right.

>
> So if there existed 3 cameras A, B and C, I have permissions to camera A
> and B, I would have the permissions "camera A" and "camera B", and there
> would exist a permission "camera C" that I did not have.

What would happen if you called navigator.permissions.query without 
supplying a deviceId? E.g.

navigator.permissions.query({name:'camera'})

>
> The point of "all-cameras" would be to say "I have permission to use
> camera A, B and C, and if camera D is plugged in, I will have permission
> to use that too".
>
> I hope someone can verify that they read the permissions doc the same
> way (or not).
>
>>
>> Stefan
>>
>> On 16/11/15 21:42, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>>> I tried to think a bit about how I would formalize the permissions model
>>> we have designed for WebRTC in terms of the permissions API's
>>> permissions model.
>>>
>>> After a while, it seemed to make sense, and I'd like to share it to see
>>> if it makes sense to others.
>>>
>>> The Google doc is here:
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13c4hTlm2XgVYpxfGL1a8fcvI1CAUdIgd662DfElk_ow/edit#heading=h.fb7kn49jp9ff
>>>
>>> Anyone with the link should be able to comment, if you want to comment
>>> off-list.
>>>
>>> The content is attached as PDF, which may be more accessible to some
>>> (and is certainly more archivable).
>>>
>>> Questions to ask:
>>>
>>> - Is this something worth doing?
>>> - If yes: Is this something that should be part of our core docs, a
>>> separate doc, part of the permissions doc, or in some "other" category?
>>> - Where did I go wrong?
>>>
>>> Comments welcome!
>>>
>>> Harald
>>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Monday, 30 November 2015 08:27:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 30 November 2015 08:27:58 UTC