W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > February 2016

Re: [mediacapture-main] Pull Request: Extend iframe with a new allowusermedia attribute (issue: #268)

From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 09:26:00 +0000
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
CC: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B37482185@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
On 10/02/16 09:44, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 10 February 2016 at 07:56, Adam Bergkvist
> <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com> wrote:
>> Given that it's not clear in what state the "floating proposal" is in,
>> it might be worth documenting our solution under the current
>> circumstances (i.e. without the consensus for the "floating proposal").
>> With a note as Stefan mentioned.
>
> Is it possible to modify Donald Duck's car to remove the specifics of
> the delegation mechanism and then try to get greater certainty about
> this plan?
>
> I'm personally not yet convinced that this general approach (require
> delegation) is going to float.  I've not seen anything more concrete
> than the Chrome figure of 3.5% of requests for permissions arriving in
> iframes.

Where did you get that figure? I noted that the "floating proposal" has 
some data, but there is no data for gUM and iFrames.

One thought that struck me: would explicit delegation also apply to 
same-origin iFrames?

   I don't know what assessment others might make from this
> information, or what additional information they might want in order
> to make a decision, but on the face of it, this is too high a number
> to break without a little more careful study.
>
Received on Wednesday, 10 February 2016 09:26:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 10 February 2016 09:26:43 UTC