W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-perf@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Page Visibility privacy section

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:47:08 +0100
To: "Philippe Le Hegaret" <plh@w3.org>
Cc: "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>, "Jatinder Mann" <jmann@microsoft.com>, "Arvind Jain" <arvind@google.com>
Message-ID: <op.v9rmsure64w2qv@annevk-macbookpro.local>
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:18:33 +0100, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-02-03 at 18:59 +0000, Jatinder Mann wrote:
>> > 6. Thought I had just before sending, should this document say
>> > something about privacy implications?
>> > Arvind is writing a section on the privacy implication.
>>
>> I assume I get another reply when that is done?
>
> here is the proposed section:
>
> [[
> 5 Privacy
>
> The Page Visibility API enables third party content on a web page to
> determine the visibility of the Document contained by the top level
> browsing context with higher precision compared to existing mechanisms,
> like focus or blur events. However, for practical considerations, the
> additional exposure is not substantial. A User Agent may provide a
> setting to disable the Page Visibility API that when set will ensure the
> hidden attribute is set to false and the visibilityState attribute is
> set to visible.
> ]]

This contradicts the various "must" requirements listed throughout the  
specification. They should probably become "should" requirements instead  
if there are indeed valid reasons not to follow them. Or the valid reasons  
are to be explicitly listed while making the requirement, but then you  
need to be exhaustive.

I also noticed that "must" is inconsistently cased throughout the  
specification and that the non-normative introduction section contains a  
"must" requirement.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Thursday, 16 February 2012 09:47:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 16 February 2012 09:47:46 GMT