Re: Feature Permissions Feedback

Hi Anne,

thanks for the feedback. Please keep in mind that we've just inherited this spec and that what it contains is almost not at all our work. We're about to change that, though.

On Jul 5, 2011, at 10:44 , Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 10:33:41 +0200, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <> wrote:
> If we are using "string constants" the numeric constants should be removed from the IDL and we should lowercase, potentially hyphenated, values, for consistency with e.g. the <canvas> API and XMLHttpRequest.


> Furthermore, the Permissions interface should have [NoInterfaceObject] attached to it.


> Permissions should probably be named more consistently with other interfaces that extend Navigator, i.e. NavigatorPermissions.

Given the previous point, that's an easy change to make.

> Should this functionality be available from workers?

In as much as workers have access to multiple elevated privileges, yes. An alternative could be to specify on worker instantiation which features it is requesting.

Robin Berjon - - @robinberjon

Received on Tuesday, 5 July 2011 13:14:35 UTC