Re: Issue 12: Javascript API to return promises instead of nothing.

The other choice would be to redefine the exception protocol such that it uses existing state management features already implemented by browsers.

I am not saying that is ideal. I just don't think we should reduce the number of valid implementations to zero when we are on the edge of removing entire sections due to there only being one old implementation deployed.

Plugins don't solve that. It isn't the user that needs a viable consent mechanism, so they have no incentive to install one. The first party sites are the ones who need a viable consent mechanism, and they need it to work for both old and new browsers.

Hence, unless we hear of support by the evergreen browsers along the lines of "we are actually working on implementing the API for general release", we should assume the JavaScript API portion is dead and do our best to work around that fact rather than waste time making it smell better.

....Roy


> On Jan 24, 2017, at 5:36 PM, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Roy,
> 
> 
> thanks a lot for the clarification.
> 
> 
> IMHO at this point, there is no guarantee that any of the browsers will
> implement the standard we propose.
> 
> This means we have two choices:
> - We strip down the standard to whatever exists in some version of some
> browser. No thinking needed; look at the browser and strip the TPE spec
> to what is there.
> - We continue to evolve the standard to meet emerging (EU and other)
> requirements and discuss how we can demonstrate interop (e.g. by
> demonstrating plugins that interact with a site).
> 
> My understanding is that the second option is the only one that allows
> us to meet our chartered goal to simplify compliance with emerging EU
> regulations. In this case, we are free to update anything including the
> JAvascript API (as long as we can then implement and validate it).
> 
> Any opionions/feedback?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> matthias
> 
>> On 24.01.2017 09:15, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> Umm, the downside is that it is a normative change to the API, which means we go back to WD status and have zero implementations.
>> 
>> I want commitments from browsers to implement this change before we make it. Right now we should assume the entire API will be removed.
>> 
>> ....Roy
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jan 24, 2017, at 3:20 AM, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Folks,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sites can use our javascript API to register site-wide and web-wide
>>> exceptions. Currently the corresponding calls do not return any results.
>>> 
>>> Mike proposed to return promises. These would allow the engine to
>>> call-back to a site once it has processed a javascript request.  This
>>> renders our API more asynchronous.
>>> 
>>> IMHO there does not be a downside to this proposal. Mike posted the
>>> changed javascript API here: https://github.com/w3c/dnt/issues/12
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Unless somebody objects before our next call, I suggest to introduce
>>> this change to our API.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> matthias
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2017 09:24:12 UTC