- From: Doug Turner <w3c@dougt.org>
- Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 09:35:43 -0800
- To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Cc: public-device-apis <public-device-apis@w3.org>
In the geolocation wg, we discussed this issue. For example, a voip phone might need to use the geolocation api to disclose location information to emergency services. We ended up with this text: http://dev.w3.org/geo/api/spec-source.html#privacy_for_uas Doug Turner On Dec 2, 2009, at 8:44 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote: > Hi, > > During the call today, and the in the follow-up discussions that Bryan > started [1], we touched again on the need for (some of) our APIs to also > be usable in a context where there is no user to give consent at usage > time, or where user consent has been granted in out-of-bands ways — > let’s call this the “installable application” context since browsers > vendors have made it pretty clear they’re not interested in catering for > these use cases in the short term (although arguably, permission > persistence is a type of out-of-band permission grants). > > I think there are several aspects to consider regarding the design of > APIs for installable applications: > • first, do we want them? I think we have heard many participants of the > group want them; the main dissension on that point has been to say that > designing APIs for the installable application context must not make > APIs for the browser context less secure > > • secondly, can we address both context within a single API? it seems > like the jury is still out on that one; it might “just” be that the > hanging-off point of the APIs is sufficient to deal with one context or > the other, but this needs to be looked at on an API-per-API basis; I > think it would certainly be a more satisfying result if we can have a > single API, but we probably should remain open on that point; a possibly > important point is that in a context where we don’t need user consent, > the requirement for an asynchronous API might be going away — there are > obviously other aspects to that (e.g. length of time needed to get back > a response). > > • thirdly, do we want them on the same schedule as browsers APIs? I > don’t think there has been much discussion on that point; the scheduling > question has really two aspects itself: > ‣ whether a single API can fit the two contexts (which essentially > affects the schedule to Last Call) > ‣ whether we can get implementations of the APIs in the two contexts > in the same schedule (which will affect the Candidate Recommendation > length) > > I’m send these thoughts in the hope we can avoid re-hashing these > discussions again and again — feedback and additions to this analysis > are very welcome. > > Dom > > 1. > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2009Dec/0067.html > > >
Received on Wednesday, 2 December 2009 18:02:07 UTC