- From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 17:21:12 +0200
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Cc: public-device-apis@w3.org
Le mercredi 15 juin 2011 à 17:16 +0200, Robin Berjon a écrit : > 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? OK, I can see that a permissions model is a possibility, but the current wording seems to imply that it is a requirement; I don't think this is critical before going to LC, but it would be good if we could clarify this. Dom
Received on Wednesday, 15 June 2011 15:21:28 UTC