- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:45:41 +0200
- To: Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>
- Cc: John Gregg <johnnyg@google.com>, public-webapps@w3.org, Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
On Jun 24, 2010, at 21:00 , Doug Turner wrote:
> On Jun 24, 2010, at 11:48 AM, John Gregg wrote:
>> interface Permissions {
>>
>> // permission values
>> const unsigned long PERMISSION_ALLOWED = 0;
>> const unsigned long PERMISSION_UNKNOWN = 1;
>> const unsigned long PERMISSION_DENIED = 2;
Small nit, but can we have string constants instead ("allowed", "denied", "unknown")? They usually turn out to either be less typing or more readable depending on whether one uses "Permissions.PERMISSION_ALLOWED" or "1".
> so, checkPermission and requestPermission. I am happy with that......
+1
> navigator.permissions.requestPermission("geolocation,desktop-notification",...).
I'd make it an array ["geolocation", "notifications"] but yeah.
>> The bigger question is, are other features interested? Would the Geolocation spec consider using something like this for permissions?
>
> cc'ing Andrei Popescu - the editor of the Geolocation spec. Not sure how to formally answer your question. However, if the permission api above was implemented, I think it naturally follows that "geolocation" would be one of the known strings.
DAP would be interested. To talk process a little bit: if we want to make this into a spec it needs a home. In case WebApps can't or won't take it (given how complicated rechartering it already is), DAP seem like a natural home for it. I'd have to ask the group of course but I'm in favour.
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Friday, 25 June 2010 11:46:11 UTC