- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 17:16:54 +0200
- To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Cc: public-device-apis@w3.org
Hi, I've made all the changes (that Dom hadn't already made) and filed the document for Last Call publication tomorrow. The one thing that is slightly different from what was agreed upon (but for which I made a judgement call that I think is correct is the following): On Jun 15, 2011, at 15:52 , Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote: > * my comment on the fact that the API refers to revokable permissions > when it's not clear that we're using a permission model in the spec > still stands; likewise regarding the existing of PERMISSION_DENIED_ERROR > error code; Using a permission model is possible with the spec — in fact we don't enforce it either way and it is quite possible that implementers will chose that option (the alternatives we propose are not normative). As a result it's quite possible that permissions could be granted in a manner that requires them being revoked, and that there could indeed be a PERMISSION_DENIED_ERROR. If eventually everyone implements it in the manner indicated in the appendix, we can phase these out. Is that an issue? -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Wednesday, 15 June 2011 15:17:20 UTC