Re: updated draft of Permissions for Device API access (was "Device API Features and Capabilities")

I think Suresh is making a good point, that some permissions are granted for a period of time and others are for a single operation, and that we should consider it.

I'm confused by mention of WARP - it is not referenced in the permissions document and I'm not sure we need a dependency on it to progress the permissions draft.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Sep 29, 2010, at 5:23 AM, ext Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:

> Le mardi 28 septembre 2010 à 13:07 -0500, Suresh Chitturi a écrit :
>> Suresh>> The use case is I would only grant permission for one time
>> which translates to getCurrentPosition() and in some cases I would be
>> fine to grant permission for continuous monitoring and that is
>> watchPosition() and yet in another case I don’t care about the details
>> and grant for both getCurrentPosition() and watchPosition().
> 
> But who is "I" in this context? The user? thhe policy framework?
> 
> getCurrentPosition() is only distinguishable from watchPosition() when
> it is limited in number, and wathcPosition() can be made equivalent to a
> getCurrentPosition() by limiting it in duration. The number/duration
> limitation parameter seems important, but I think it's orthogonal to the
> actual permission that is granted, and probably ought to be specified
> separately (e.g. through a <param> element in the <feature> element of
> widgets P&C).
> 
> Maybe we should start collecting these parameters as part of the
> document?
> 
>> Suresh>> My understanding is that these identifiers can be used in
>> with the <feature> element prefixed with a URI as described in the 1.
>> Introduction. And what I was merely suggesting is that a complementary
>> statement be added that these identifiers can also be used in
>> conjunction with the <access> element. 
> 
> But that doesn't seem to match what WARP currently allows; I don't know
> how you would specify that only example.com can make use of geolocation
> within the current form of WARP:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-access/
> 
> That might be a worthwhile complement to WARP (in which case it should
> be written up as a concrete specification), but I don't think it makes
> to refer to it if it isn't specified yet.
> 
> Dom
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 29 September 2010 13:59:36 UTC