public-device-apis-log@w3.org from October 2019 by date

Thursday, 31 October 2019

• Re: [deviceorientation] Move fingerprintable APIs behind permissions (#85) pes via GitHub

Wednesday, 30 October 2019

• Re: [deviceorientation] Move fingerprintable APIs behind permissions (#85) Reilly Grant via GitHub
• Re: [deviceorientation] Move fingerprintable APIs behind permissions (#85) pes via GitHub

Sunday, 27 October 2019

• Re: [deviceorientation] Add API for requesting permission to receive device motion / orientation events (#57) Gregory Koberger via GitHub
• Re: [deviceorientation] Add API for requesting permission to receive device motion / orientation events (#57) Martin via GitHub

Saturday, 26 October 2019

• Re: [sensors] Spec should include mandatory mitigations for privacy harms / risks (#397) pes via GitHub
• Re: [sensors] Remove text about non-explicit permissions (#396) pes via GitHub
• Re: [deviceorientation] Move fingerprintable APIs behind permissions (#85) pes via GitHub

Friday, 25 October 2019

• Re: [sensors] Spec should include mandatory mitigations for privacy harms / risks (#397) Anssi Kostiainen via GitHub
• Re: [sensors] Remove text about non-explicit permissions (#396) Anssi Kostiainen via GitHub
• Re: [deviceorientation] Move fingerprintable APIs behind permissions (#85) Anssi Kostiainen via GitHub

Thursday, 24 October 2019

• Re: [sensors] Move fingerprintable APIs behind permissions (#398) pes via GitHub
• Closed: [sensors] Move fingerprintable APIs behind permissions (#398) pes via GitHub
• Re: [sensors] Move fingerprintable APIs behind permissions (#398) Anssi Kostiainen via GitHub
• Re: [sensors] Remove text about non-explicit permissions (#396) Anssi Kostiainen via GitHub
• [sensors] Spec should include mandatory mitigations for privacy harms / risks (#397) pes via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] WakeLock.request() returns a promise that never resolves (#226) Thomas Steiner via GitHub

Wednesday, 23 October 2019

• [wake-lock] Hide failure to acquire a screen wake lock (#247) Reilly Grant via GitHub
• Re: [deviceorientation] Add API for requesting permission to receive device motion / orientation events (#57) Mario González via GitHub

Monday, 21 October 2019

• Re: [sensors] Syntax correction for the Feature-Policy response header example (#395) Anssi Kostiainen via GitHub
• Re: [sensors] Syntax correction for the Feature-Policy response header example (#395) Robert Linder via GitHub

Saturday, 19 October 2019

• Re: [deviceorientation] Need to define the DeviceMotionEvent constructor (#83) Raphael Kubo da Costa via GitHub

Friday, 18 October 2019

• Re: [deviceorientation] Add API for requesting permission to receive device motion / orientation events (#57) Chris Dumez via GitHub
• Re: [deviceorientation] Add API for requesting permission to receive device motion / orientation events (#57) Mario González via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] In obtain permission: don't co-opt resultPromise - it's creating a custom permission model (#198) Raphael Kubo da Costa via GitHub
• [wake-lock] Figure out what to do with workers and permission requests (#246) Raphael Kubo da Costa via GitHub
• Closed: [wake-lock] Race condition in request() steps (#239) Raphael Kubo da Costa via GitHub
• Closed: [wake-lock] Consider not defining a custom WakeLockEvent (#238) Raphael Kubo da Costa via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] Rewrite user-visible API (#237) Anssi Kostiainen via GitHub
• Closed: [wake-lock] Describe WakeLockSentinel.type (#240) Raphael Kubo da Costa via GitHub
• Closed: [wake-lock] WakeLockPermissionDescriptor's type should be required (#233) Raphael Kubo da Costa via GitHub

Thursday, 17 October 2019

• Re: [wake-lock] Make WakeLockPermissionDescriptor.type required. (#244) Raphael Kubo da Costa via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] Make WakeLockPermissionDescriptor.type required. (#244) Kenneth Rohde Christiansen via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] In obtain permission: don't co-opt resultPromise - it's creating a custom permission model (#198) Raphael Kubo da Costa via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] Remove WakeLockEvent and WakeLockEventInit. (#242) Raphael Kubo da Costa via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] Add an "if aborted" step to WakeLock.request() to deal with hidden documents (#234) Raphael Kubo da Costa via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] Rewrite user-visible API (#237) Raphael Kubo da Costa via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] Add an "if aborted" step to WakeLock.request() to deal with hidden documents (#234) Raphael Kubo da Costa via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] Rewrite user-visible API (#237) Marcos Cáceres via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] Rewrite user-visible API (#237) Kenneth Rohde Christiansen via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] Rewrite user-visible API (#237) Marcos Cáceres via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] Rewrite user-visible API (#237) Kenneth Rohde Christiansen via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] Rewrite user-visible API (#237) Marcos Cáceres via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] Rewrite user-visible API (#237) Kenneth Rohde Christiansen via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] Consider not defining a custom WakeLockEvent (#238) Marcos Cáceres via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] Race condition in request() steps (#239) Marcos Cáceres via GitHub

Wednesday, 16 October 2019

• Re: [wake-lock] Race condition in request() steps (#239) Raphael Kubo da Costa via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] Describe WakeLockSentinel.type (#240) Reilly Grant via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] Race condition in request() steps (#239) Reilly Grant via GitHub
• [wake-lock] Describe WakeLockSentinel.type (#240) Raphael Kubo da Costa via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] Race condition in request() steps (#239) Raphael Kubo da Costa via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] Rewrite user-visible API (#237) Reilly Grant via GitHub
• [wake-lock] Race condition in request() steps (#239) Reilly Grant via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] Consider not defining a custom WakeLockEvent (#238) Reilly Grant via GitHub
• [wake-lock] Consider not defining a custom WakeLockEvent (#238) Reilly Grant via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] Rewrite user-visible API (#237) Raphael Kubo da Costa via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] Rewrite user-visible API (#237) Kenneth Rohde Christiansen via GitHub
• Closed: [wake-lock] WakeLock.request() returns a promise that never resolves (#226) Kenneth Rohde Christiansen via GitHub
• Re: [battery] Allow use in same-origin children, add Feature Policy integration (#13) Anssi Kostiainen via GitHub

Monday, 14 October 2019

• Re: [sensors] [meta] Wide review tracker (#299) Anssi Kostiainen via GitHub

Sunday, 13 October 2019

• Re: [sensors] Access to magnetometer and potential security & privacy issues (#394) Nikolay Matyunin via GitHub

Friday, 11 October 2019

• Re: [wake-lock] Add an "if aborted" step to WakeLock.request() to deal with hidden documents (#234) Raphael Kubo da Costa via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] Add an "if aborted" step to WakeLock.request() to deal with hidden documents (#234) Kenneth Rohde Christiansen via GitHub
• Re: [sensors] Access to magnetometer and potential security & privacy issues (#394) Reilly Grant via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] Add an "if aborted" step to WakeLock.request() to deal with hidden documents (#234) Raphael Kubo da Costa via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] Fix reference to "a new promise". (#235) Raphael Kubo da Costa via GitHub
• [sensors] Access to magnetometer and potential security & privacy issues (#394) Nikolay Matyunin via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] Add an "if aborted" step to WakeLock.request() to deal with hidden documents (#234) Raphael Kubo da Costa via GitHub

Thursday, 10 October 2019

• Re: [sensors] [meta] Wide review tracker (#299) Anssi Kostiainen via GitHub

Wednesday, 9 October 2019

• Re: [wake-lock] Anyone implementing "system" lock? (#232) Marcos Cáceres via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] Anyone implementing "system" lock? (#232) Kenneth Rohde Christiansen via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] In obtain permission: don't co-opt resultPromise - it's creating a custom permission model (#198) Marcos Cáceres via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] In obtain permission: don't co-opt resultPromise - it's creating a custom permission model (#198) Marcos Cáceres via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] Anyone implementing "system" lock? (#232) Marcos Cáceres via GitHub

Tuesday, 8 October 2019

• Re: [wake-lock] WakeLockPermissionDescriptor's type should be required (#233) Reilly Grant via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] Anyone implementing "system" lock? (#232) Reilly Grant via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] In obtain permission: don't co-opt resultPromise - it's creating a custom permission model (#198) Reilly Grant via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] In obtain permission: don't co-opt resultPromise - it's creating a custom permission model (#198) Raphael Kubo da Costa via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] In obtain permission: don't co-opt resultPromise - it's creating a custom permission model (#198) Kenneth Rohde Christiansen via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] In obtain permission: don't co-opt resultPromise - it's creating a custom permission model (#198) Raphael Kubo da Costa via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] Anyone implementing "system" lock? (#232) Kenneth Rohde Christiansen via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] Anyone implementing "system" lock? (#232) Marcos Cáceres via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] Anyone implementing "system" lock? (#232) Kenneth Rohde Christiansen via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] Anyone implementing "system" lock? (#232) Marcos Cáceres via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] Anyone implementing "system" lock? (#232) Marcos Cáceres via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] Anyone implementing "system" lock? (#232) Kenneth Rohde Christiansen via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] WakeLockPermissionDescriptor's type should be required (#233) Marcos Cáceres via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] Anyone implementing "system" lock? (#232) Marcos Cáceres via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] WakeLockPermissionDescriptor's type should be required (#233) Kenneth Rohde Christiansen via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] Anyone implementing "system" lock? (#232) Kenneth Rohde Christiansen via GitHub
• [wake-lock] WakeLockPermissionDescriptor's type should be required (#233) Marcos Cáceres via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] Anyone implementing "system" lock? (#232) Marcos Cáceres via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] Anyone implementing "system" lock? (#232) Kenneth Rohde Christiansen via GitHub
• [wake-lock] Anyone implementing "system" lock? (#232) Marcos Cáceres via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] In obtain permission: don't co-opt resultPromise - it's creating a custom permission model (#198) Marcos Cáceres via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] In obtain permission: don't co-opt resultPromise - it's creating a custom permission model (#198) Marcos Cáceres via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] In obtain permission: don't co-opt resultPromise - it's creating a custom permission model (#198) Kenneth Rohde Christiansen via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] In obtain permission: don't co-opt resultPromise - it's creating a custom permission model (#198) Marcos Cáceres via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] In obtain permission: don't co-opt resultPromise - it's creating a custom permission model (#198) Kenneth Rohde Christiansen via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] In obtain permission: don't co-opt resultPromise - it's creating a custom permission model (#198) Marcos Cáceres via GitHub

Friday, 4 October 2019

• Re: [wake-lock] WakeLock.request() returns a promise that never resolves (#226) Reilly Grant via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] WakeLock.request() returns a promise that never resolves (#226) Raphael Kubo da Costa via GitHub

Thursday, 3 October 2019

• Re: [wake-lock] WakeLock.request() returns a promise that never resolves (#226) Reilly Grant via GitHub
• Re: [wake-lock] WakeLock.request() returns a promise that never resolves (#226) Raphael Kubo da Costa via GitHub

Last message date: Thursday, 31 October 2019 17:07:54 UTC