W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-geolocation@w3.org > December 2014

Re: [POWER] New vs Legacy functionality (Re: "Requirements for Powerful Features" strawman.)

From: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 20:46:57 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKXHy=csaX3EPHSKEj1Pki3iKrKr888QiQ9i1kQCQNkEX9Z72Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Palmer <palmer@google.com>
Cc: "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, "public-geolocation@w3.org" <public-geolocation@w3.org>, "Nottingham, Mark" <mnotting@akamai.com>
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Chris Palmer <palmer@google.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 6:39 AM, Mike West <mkwst@google.com> wrote:
> > I took a stab at this in
> > https://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/powerfulfeatures/#restrictions.
> > Feedback?
> """If result is Insecure, then [insert something appropriate here:
> perhaps you could reject a Promise, call an error callback, deny a
> permission request, etc.]."""
> How about:
> """If result is Insecure, then the callee could for example reject the
> Promise, callback a caller's error handler, deny a permission request,
> or return an empty or lower-resolution result object."""

The goal was to be copy/paste-able. In that case, I'd prefer to keep
something in the text that looks obviously wrong so that the spec author
would realize that she needed to put something reasonable in there.

I guess that wasn't clear. :)

I'll attempt to clarify.


Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
Google+: https://mkw.st/+, Twitter: @mikewest, Cell: +49 162 10 255 91

Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstrasse 12, 80331 München, Germany
Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg
Geschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine Elizabeth Flores
(Sorry; I'm legally required to add this exciting detail to emails. Bleh.)
Received on Tuesday, 9 December 2014 19:47:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:51:10 UTC