Re: permissions.request() and publishing a new Permissions WD

On 8/26/16 2:11 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:00 AM, Marcos Caceres <marcos@marcosc.com 
> <mailto:marcos@marcosc.com>> wrote:
>
>     On August 26, 2016 at 4:54:13 PM, Anne van Kesteren
>     (annevk@annevk.nl <mailto:annevk@annevk.nl>) wrote:
>     > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:04 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
>     > > What do folks think?
>     >
>     > That furthering the idea that publication is somehow tied to
>     agreement
>     > is wrong. Just publish and don't use publication as
>     justification for
>     > implementation decisions.
>
>     I agree. Let's just mark things clearly where we are seeking feedback
>     or debating things. As long as things are clearly marked as
>     contentious/at-risk, it should not be a problem (it's less harmful
>     than having a rotting spec on TR).
>

I'd like to request that the following text be reinstated before 
publication [1]:

-    <p> The initial intent of this document was to allow web 
applications to
-    request and revoke permissions explicitly in addition to querying the
-    permission status. This is an aspect of the specification that was
-    controversial thus removed from the current document in a spirit of
-    incremental changes: settling on a small API that can be improved. </p>

...or in a form that recognizes revoke's and request's presence in the 
document is in spite of their controversy.

One browser already shipped revoke by accident, something this statement 
might have helped avoid.

[1] removed in https://github.com/w3c/permissions/pull/79/files

.: Jan-Ivar :.