On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote: > You did, but that's not the same as having the application able to > manage those choices over time. The problem with having the UA do > this is that it is often ignorant of application context. It can even > have difficulty identifying a specific application. The same origin > can host multiple applications, or the one application can appear on > multiple origins. > "One application at multiple origins" is not supported by the Web platform. Features like persistent storage, application cache and remembered permissions don't handle that case. This is not something we should be trying to support. Usually a page URL (excluding query parameters and fragment reference) is adequate to identify an application. >From an application developer perspective, I don't trust the UA to get > this right. > In the long run the number of UAs is much smaller than the number of applications, and a lot of the application developers will not be competent, so placing responsibility on the UA generally works out better, all other things being equal. In this case, even good developers will have great difficulty anticipating the range of hardware and devices that UAs deploy on, let alone testing across that range. Security and privacy are also much easier to handle in the UA since we can trust the UA and not the application. Any kind of device enumeration creates privacy issues which a "logical output device" approach simply doesn't have. Rob -- Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o Whhei csha iids teoa stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d 'mYaonu,r "sGients uapr,e tfaokreg iyvoeunr, 'm aotr atnod sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t" uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n? gBoutt uIp waanndt wyeonut thoo mken.o w * *
Received on Friday, 16 August 2013 02:15:51 UTC